PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine the feasibility of office hysteroscopy through the no-touch "see and treat technique" in a routine basis in private practice. METHODS: In the private practice of two trained gynecologists, women with an indication for further investigation of the uterine cavity were treated with the technique. A total of 112 consecutive women were prospectively allocated to a "no-touch" and "see and treat" technique of hysteroscopy. Neither anaesthesia nor analgesia was used as soon as criteria were met. Hysteroscopy was performed using a rigid 3.4-mm hysteroscope and a medium of 0.9% saline. RESULTS: Treatment efficacy and patient compliance were evaluated through scores on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, complications and success rates, along with the symphony between hysteroscopic findings and histology. The patients' pain score on the VAS was low and only in 2 out of 112 cases there was a marked discomfort. In four cases suggested treatment was not successful, because of the fear of the patient. In 60.71% of cases that hysteroscopy was indicated, the uterine cavity was normal. No complications or adverse effects were noted. Apart from one case, there was a full agreement between hysteroscopic findings and histology. CONCLUSION: Office hysteroscopy is a successful and well-tolerated procedure. Through adequate expertise it should be considered the method of choice in private basis, at the same time when exploration of the uterine cavity is needed.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine the feasibility of office hysteroscopy through the no-touch "see and treat technique" in a routine basis in private practice. METHODS: In the private practice of two trained gynecologists, women with an indication for further investigation of the uterine cavity were treated with the technique. A total of 112 consecutive women were prospectively allocated to a "no-touch" and "see and treat" technique of hysteroscopy. Neither anaesthesia nor analgesia was used as soon as criteria were met. Hysteroscopy was performed using a rigid 3.4-mm hysteroscope and a medium of 0.9% saline. RESULTS: Treatment efficacy and patient compliance were evaluated through scores on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, complications and success rates, along with the symphony between hysteroscopic findings and histology. The patients' pain score on the VAS was low and only in 2 out of 112 cases there was a marked discomfort. In four cases suggested treatment was not successful, because of the fear of the patient. In 60.71% of cases that hysteroscopy was indicated, the uterine cavity was normal. No complications or adverse effects were noted. Apart from one case, there was a full agreement between hysteroscopic findings and histology. CONCLUSION: Office hysteroscopy is a successful and well-tolerated procedure. Through adequate expertise it should be considered the method of choice in private basis, at the same time when exploration of the uterine cavity is needed.