OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare patient discomfort during saline infusion sonography (SIS) and office hysteroscopy performed according to a vaginoscopic approach. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING:University hospital. POPULATION: Women with an indication for further investigation of the uterine cavity. METHODS: A total of 100 women randomly allocated to eitherSIS or vaginoscopic office hysteroscopy in an outpatient clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and a present pain intensity (PPI) scale, conclusiveness and success rate. RESULTS: The patients' pain scores on both the VAS and the PPI were lower for SIS when compared with office hysteroscopy (P < 0.05). However, in cases of severe pain (VAS > 7 or PPI > 2), there was no statistically significant difference between both groups. The success rate, defined as adequate inspection of the cervical canal and uterine cavity, was 94% for SIS compared with 92% for office hysteroscopy (P = 0.633). SIS, multiparity, shorter procedure time and position of the uterus in anteversion decreased pain scores among women studied. CONCLUSIONS: Both SIS and office hysteroscopy are successful procedures and well tolerated by women. SIS induces significantly less discomfort than office hysteroscopy and should therefore be considered the method of choice.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare patient discomfort during saline infusion sonography (SIS) and office hysteroscopy performed according to a vaginoscopic approach. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: University hospital. POPULATION: Women with an indication for further investigation of the uterine cavity. METHODS: A total of 100 women randomly allocated to either SIS or vaginoscopic office hysteroscopy in an outpatient clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and a present pain intensity (PPI) scale, conclusiveness and success rate. RESULTS: The patients' pain scores on both the VAS and the PPI were lower for SIS when compared with office hysteroscopy (P < 0.05). However, in cases of severe pain (VAS > 7 or PPI > 2), there was no statistically significant difference between both groups. The success rate, defined as adequate inspection of the cervical canal and uterine cavity, was 94% for SIS compared with 92% for office hysteroscopy (P = 0.633). SIS, multiparity, shorter procedure time and position of the uterus in anteversion decreased pain scores among women studied. CONCLUSIONS: Both SIS and office hysteroscopy are successful procedures and well tolerated by women. SIS induces significantly less discomfort than office hysteroscopy and should therefore be considered the method of choice.
Authors: Heleen van Dongen; Anne Timmermans; Cathrien E Jacobi; Trudy Elskamp; Cor D de Kroon; Frank Willem Jansen Journal: Gynecol Surg Date: 2010-12-30
Authors: Magdalena M Biela; Jacek Doniec; Monika Szafarowska; Kamil Sobocinski; Andrzej Kwiatkowski; Paweł Kamiński Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 1.195