Literature DB >> 18307203

Pain experienced during transvaginal ultrasound, saline contrast sonohysterography, hysteroscopy and office sampling: a comparative study.

T Van den Bosch1, J Verguts, A Daemen, O Gevaert, E Domali, F Claerhout, V Vandenbroucke, B De Moor, J Deprest, D Timmerman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the pain experienced by women during transvaginal ultrasound, saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH), diagnostic hysteroscopy and office sampling.
METHODS: This was a descriptive study of 402 consecutive patients presenting at a 'one-stop' Bleeding Clinic between October 2004 and November 2006. Thirty-nine percent of the patients were postmenopausal. The patients underwent the following examinations transvaginally: first ultrasound with color Doppler, second SCSH, third diagnostic hysteroscopy and fourth endometrial biopsy. After completion of the examinations the patients were asked to complete a questionnaire including a visual analog scale (VAS) about their subjective appreciation of all four examinations. Two-hundred and ninety-three (72%) patients returned the questionnaire.
RESULTS: The median (range) VAS scores for transvaginal ultrasound, SCSH, diagnostic hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling were 1.0 (0-8.1), 2.2 (0-10), 2.7 (0-10) and 5.1 (0-10), respectively (P < 0.0001). The patients' answers to the other questions about the pain experienced, including comparison with other minor procedures such as venous blood sampling, were all concordant with the VAS scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal ultrasound was the procedure best accepted, followed by SCSH, hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling. These results suggest that patients would prefer SCSH over hysteroscopy as an initial diagnostic approach in the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding. (c) 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18307203     DOI: 10.1002/uog.5263

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  8 in total

1.  Diagnostic value of saline contrast sonohysterography comparing with hysteroscopy for detecting endometrial abnormalities in women with abnormal uterine bleeding.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Karimzadeh; Razieh Dehghani Firouzabadi; Farzaneh Goharzad
Journal:  Iran J Reprod Med       Date:  2011

Review 2.  Three-dimensional saline infusion sonography compared to two-dimensional saline infusion sonography for the diagnosis of focal intracavitary lesions.

Authors:  Lotte L Nieuwenhuis; Frederik Jr Hermans; A J Marjolein Bij de Vaate; Mariska Mg Leeflang; Hans Am Brölmann; Wouter Jk Hehenkamp; Ben Willem J Mol; T Justin Clark; Judith Af Huirne
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-05-05

3.  A Comparative Observational Study of the Use of Saline Uterine Hydrosonography for the Diagnosis and Assessment of Uterine Cavity Lesions in Women.

Authors:  Veluppillai Vathanan; Nii Adjeidu Armar
Journal:  Int J Reprod Med       Date:  2016-08-11

4.  The optimal analgesic method in saline infusion sonogram: A comparison of two effective techniques with placebo.

Authors:  Sadullah Özkan; Bülent Kars; Önder Sakin; Aylin Onan Yılmaz; Yaren Tuba Bektaş; Halim Ömer Kaşıkçı
Journal:  Turk J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-09-15

Review 5.  Ultrasound in the diagnosis of endometrial and intracavitary pathology: an update.

Authors:  Thierry Van den Bosch
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-12-31

6.  ROUTINE SALINE INFUSION SONOHYSTEROGRAPHY PRIOR TO ASSISTED CONCEPTION: A REVIEW OF OUR INITIAL EXPERIENCE.

Authors:  G Obajimi; B Ogunkinle
Journal:  Ann Ib Postgrad Med       Date:  2016-12

7.  Hysterosalpingocontrast sonography (HyCoSy): evaluation of the pain perception, side effects and complications.

Authors:  Roberto Marci; Immacolata Marcucci; Aurelio Aniceto Marcucci; Nicolina Pacini; Pietro Salacone; Annalisa Sebastianelli; Luisa Caponecchia; Giuseppe Lo Monte; Rocco Rago
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 1.930

Review 8.  Building decision trees for diagnosing intracavitary uterine pathology.

Authors:  T Van den Bosch; A Daemen; O Gevaert; B De Moor; D Timmerman
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2009
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.