OBJECTIVES: To compare gel infusion sonohysterography (GIS) with saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH) with regard to technical feasibility and procedure-related pain experienced by patients. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study included 551 consecutive patients with abnormal bleeding: SCSH was attempted in the first 402 women and GIS was attempted in the following 149. All procedures were performed by the same examiner, in the same clinical setting, using a 2-mm diameter catheter. After contrast sonohysterography, most patients underwent office hysteroscopy (n = 502) and endometrial sampling (n = 323). The women were asked to rate the pain experienced during each procedure using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Patients' characteristics, ultrasound findings, histological diagnosis, technical failures and procedure-related pain were compared between the two procedures. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD VAS score for contrast sonography, subsequent hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy were 22.9 +/- 21.7, 38.8 +/- 26.6 and 50.0 +/- 26.3, respectively, in the SCSH subgroup vs. 16.5 +/- 21.5, 27.6 +/- 28 and 33.6 +/- 30.3, respectively, in the GIS subgroup (P = 0.0051, P = 0.0005 and P = 0.0003, respectively). The technical failure rate was 5% in the SCSH subgroup vs. 2% in the GIS subgroup (P = 0.1522). CONCLUSIONS: GIS and SCSH showed similar technical feasibility. The procedure-related pain reported by patients during contrast sonohysterography, as well as during subsequent hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling, was less in the GIS group. Copyright 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
OBJECTIVES: To compare gel infusion sonohysterography (GIS) with saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH) with regard to technical feasibility and procedure-related pain experienced by patients. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study included 551 consecutive patients with abnormal bleeding: SCSH was attempted in the first 402 women and GIS was attempted in the following 149. All procedures were performed by the same examiner, in the same clinical setting, using a 2-mm diameter catheter. After contrast sonohysterography, most patients underwent office hysteroscopy (n = 502) and endometrial sampling (n = 323). The women were asked to rate the pain experienced during each procedure using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Patients' characteristics, ultrasound findings, histological diagnosis, technical failures and procedure-related pain were compared between the two procedures. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD VAS score for contrast sonography, subsequent hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy were 22.9 +/- 21.7, 38.8 +/- 26.6 and 50.0 +/- 26.3, respectively, in the SCSH subgroup vs. 16.5 +/- 21.5, 27.6 +/- 28 and 33.6 +/- 30.3, respectively, in the GIS subgroup (P = 0.0051, P = 0.0005 and P = 0.0003, respectively). The technical failure rate was 5% in the SCSH subgroup vs. 2% in the GIS subgroup (P = 0.1522). CONCLUSIONS: GIS and SCSH showed similar technical feasibility. The procedure-related pain reported by patients during contrast sonohysterography, as well as during subsequent hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling, was less in the GIS group. Copyright 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Soetkin G Thijssen; Ruben R G Heremans; Meri Nderlita; Wouter J G Froyman; Susanne Housmans; Willy A J Poppe; Dirk Timmerman; Thierry Van den Bosch Journal: J Med Ultrasound Date: 2019-09-06