P Capmas1, A-G Pourcelot2, E Giral3, D Fedida3, H Fernandez4. 1. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, AP-HP, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; Inserm, Centre of research in epidemiology and population health (CESP), U1018, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. Electronic address: perrine.capmas@aphp.fr. 2. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, AP-HP, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; Faculty of medicine, University Paris Sud, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. 3. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, AP-HP, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. 4. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, AP-HP, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; Inserm, Centre of research in epidemiology and population health (CESP), U1018, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; Faculty of medicine, University Paris Sud, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hysteroscopy is the gold standard for evaluation of uterine cavity. It can be performed either as office setting or as day care procedure under general anaesthesia. Objective of this study is to assess feasibility and acceptability of office hysteroscopy without anaesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study took place in the gynaecologic unit of a teaching hospital. Women who had had an office hysteroscopy from 2010 to 2013 were included. RESULTS: Two thousand four hundred and two office hysteroscopies were carried out. Indications were menorrhagia (32.2%), postoperative evaluation (20.8%), infertility (15.8%), postmenopausal bleeding (10.9%) and other indications (20.3%). Women's mean age was 39.4 [39.0-39.9] and significantly higher among women with a failure of the office hysteroscopy (47.3 vs. 38.6, P<0.01). The failure rate was 9.5%, significantly higher in women with postmenopausal bleeding and lower in women for a postoperative evaluation. Assessment of an abnormal uterine cavity was done in 56.0% of cases with 28.7% of myomas, 27.2% of polyps, 17.7% of synechiaes, 14.7% of endometrial hypertrophies, 9.0% of trophoblastic retentions and 7.7% of uterine malformation. The complication rate of office hysteroscopy was 0.05%. Mean pain score during the examination was 3.57 out of 10 [3.48-3.66] and 0.89 [0.83-0.95] five minutes later. CONCLUSION: Office hysteroscopy is safe and feasible with little pain. A failure rate of 9.5% is reported, mainly for older women with postmenopausal bleeding.
INTRODUCTION: Hysteroscopy is the gold standard for evaluation of uterine cavity. It can be performed either as office setting or as day care procedure under general anaesthesia. Objective of this study is to assess feasibility and acceptability of office hysteroscopy without anaesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study took place in the gynaecologic unit of a teaching hospital. Women who had had an office hysteroscopy from 2010 to 2013 were included. RESULTS: Two thousand four hundred and two office hysteroscopies were carried out. Indications were menorrhagia (32.2%), postoperative evaluation (20.8%), infertility (15.8%), postmenopausal bleeding (10.9%) and other indications (20.3%). Women's mean age was 39.4 [39.0-39.9] and significantly higher among women with a failure of the office hysteroscopy (47.3 vs. 38.6, P<0.01). The failure rate was 9.5%, significantly higher in women with postmenopausal bleeding and lower in women for a postoperative evaluation. Assessment of an abnormal uterine cavity was done in 56.0% of cases with 28.7% of myomas, 27.2% of polyps, 17.7% of synechiaes, 14.7% of endometrial hypertrophies, 9.0% of trophoblastic retentions and 7.7% of uterine malformation. The complication rate of office hysteroscopy was 0.05%. Mean pain score during the examination was 3.57 out of 10 [3.48-3.66] and 0.89 [0.83-0.95] five minutes later. CONCLUSION: Office hysteroscopy is safe and feasible with little pain. A failure rate of 9.5% is reported, mainly for older women with postmenopausal bleeding.
Authors: Andréa Pegoraro; Marcelo Ettruri Santos; Jean Tetsuo Takamori; Waldemar de Almeida Pereira de Carvalho; Renato de Oliveira; Caio Parente Barbosa; Ângela van Nimwegen Journal: Einstein (Sao Paulo) Date: 2019-12-13
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