Morris Wortman1, Amy Daggett, Courtney Ball. 1. Center for Menstrual Disorders and Reproductive Choice, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York 14618, USA. moe2020@cmdrc.com
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and satisfaction among patients undergoing operative hysteroscopy in an office-based setting. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Physician's private office. PATIENTS: Women undergoing operative hysteroscopy in an office setting. INTERVENTIONS: Three hundred eighty-seven women underwent a total of 414 operative hysteroscopic procedures, with use of parenterally administered moderate sedation, a 9-mm operative resectoscope, and sonographic guidance. All patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class I-III. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 305 primary operative hysteroscopic procedures were performed including endomyometrial resection, myomectomy, polypectomy, removal of a uterine septum, and adhesiolysis. One hundred nine (26.3%) repeat operative procedures were performed in women in whom previous endometrial ablation and resection had failed. The average procedure required a mean (SD) of 37.6 (13.5) minutes to complete, and produced 14.1 (10.2) g of tissue. Ninety-nine percent of all procedures were completed. Only 1 patient required a hospital transfer for evaluation of a uterine perforation necessitating diagnostic laparoscopy. There were 8 (1.9%) postoperative infections, and no complications attributable to use of conscious sedation. Two hundred fifty-five women (65.6%) responded to our telephone survey. Two hundred fifty-two (98.8%) respondents were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied." Two hundred forty-nine women (97.6%) preferred the office to a hospital setting, whereas 6 (2.4%) would have preferred a hospital setting. All but 5 respondents would recommend this procedure to a friend. CONCLUSION: Major operative hysteroscopic surgery can be performed in an office-based setting with a high degree of safety and patient satisfaction. Published by Elsevier Inc.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and satisfaction among patients undergoing operative hysteroscopy in an office-based setting. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Physician's private office. PATIENTS: Women undergoing operative hysteroscopy in an office setting. INTERVENTIONS: Three hundred eighty-seven women underwent a total of 414 operative hysteroscopic procedures, with use of parenterally administered moderate sedation, a 9-mm operative resectoscope, and sonographic guidance. All patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class I-III. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 305 primary operative hysteroscopic procedures were performed including endomyometrial resection, myomectomy, polypectomy, removal of a uterine septum, and adhesiolysis. One hundred nine (26.3%) repeat operative procedures were performed in women in whom previous endometrial ablation and resection had failed. The average procedure required a mean (SD) of 37.6 (13.5) minutes to complete, and produced 14.1 (10.2) g of tissue. Ninety-nine percent of all procedures were completed. Only 1 patient required a hospital transfer for evaluation of a uterine perforation necessitating diagnostic laparoscopy. There were 8 (1.9%) postoperative infections, and no complications attributable to use of conscious sedation. Two hundred fifty-five women (65.6%) responded to our telephone survey. Two hundred fifty-two (98.8%) respondents were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied." Two hundred forty-nine women (97.6%) preferred the office to a hospital setting, whereas 6 (2.4%) would have preferred a hospital setting. All but 5 respondents would recommend this procedure to a friend. CONCLUSION: Major operative hysteroscopic surgery can be performed in an office-based setting with a high degree of safety and patient satisfaction. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Salvatore Giovanni Vitale; Salvatore Caruso; Michal Ciebiera; Péter Török; Jan Tesarik; George Angelos Vilos; Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh; Ferdinando Antonio Gulino; Mohan Shashikant Kamath; Antonio Cianci Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Georg Reith; Vera Schmitz-Greven; Kai O Hensel; Marco M Schneider; Tibor Tinschmann; Bertil Bouillon; Christian Probst Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 2.102