A M Darwish1, A M Ahmad, A M Mohammad. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut, Egypt. a_darwish@mailcity.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol versus endocervical laminaria tents prior to operative hysteroscopy in selected cases. METHODS: A total of 144 patients with diagnosed intrauterine lesions scheduled for operative hysteroscopy were randomly allocated to two groups according to method of cervical priming prior to the procedure. Misoprostol 200 microg was inserted into the posterior fornix of the vagina for patients in group A (n=72), while laminaria tents were inserted intracervically in group B patients (n=72). RESULTS: Both methods were effective for cervical dilatation with a mean cervical diameter of 7.5+/-1.2 and 7.6+/-1.2 mm respectively. There was no significant difference in the mean cervical diameter or the time required for cervical dilatation (51.6 versus 51.4 s respectively). In contrast, there was a significant difference between the groups with respect to the insertion difficulty and in doctors' and patients' assessments of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Both misoprostol and laminaria were equally effective in inducing proper cervical priming prior to operative hysteroscopy with minimal time of cervical dilatation. Nevertheless, misoprostol may be superior due to easy application, reduced cost, and patient convenience and acceptability.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol versus endocervical laminaria tents prior to operative hysteroscopy in selected cases. METHODS: A total of 144 patients with diagnosed intrauterine lesions scheduled for operative hysteroscopy were randomly allocated to two groups according to method of cervical priming prior to the procedure. Misoprostol 200 microg was inserted into the posterior fornix of the vagina for patients in group A (n=72), while laminaria tents were inserted intracervically in group B patients (n=72). RESULTS: Both methods were effective for cervical dilatation with a mean cervical diameter of 7.5+/-1.2 and 7.6+/-1.2 mm respectively. There was no significant difference in the mean cervical diameter or the time required for cervical dilatation (51.6 versus 51.4 s respectively). In contrast, there was a significant difference between the groups with respect to the insertion difficulty and in doctors' and patients' assessments of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Both misoprostol and laminaria were equally effective in inducing proper cervical priming prior to operative hysteroscopy with minimal time of cervical dilatation. Nevertheless, misoprostol may be superior due to easy application, reduced cost, and patient convenience and acceptability.