Chin-Tzu Tien1, Pei-Chen Li1, Dah-Ching Ding1,2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital; Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation; Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan, ROC. 2. Institute of Medical Sciences, Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan, ROC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopy is a traditional diagnostic method, whereas vaginoscopy is a more recent but proven approach. However, most physicians are unfamiliar with vaginoscopy. We aimed to compare the feasibility and tolerability between the two techniques to increase clinical awareness. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 100 patients who underwent office hysteroscopy with either the standard approach or the vaginoscopic approach between May and July 2019. While the standard hysteroscopy group underwent speculum insertion and the cervix was grasped with forceps, the vaginoscopy group did not. The primary outcome was a successfully completed examination. Related outcomes were the pain score, complications, and absence of signs of infection at 1 week after completing the examination. RESULTS: The success rates of vaginoscopy and standard hysteroscopy were comparable (95.5% vs 96.3%). The median time to complete a vaginoscopy (135 seconds) was significantly shorter than to complete a standard hysteroscopy (190 seconds, p = 0.02). The median pain score was 3 for vaginoscopy, which was significantly lower than that for standard hysteroscopy (5; p = 0.01). There were no differences in the surgical complication rate between vaginoscopy (n = 4) and standard hysteroscopy (n = 3) (relative risk = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-6.00). CONCLUSION: Vaginoscopy required a shorter time for the completion of the examination and involved lesser pain than the standard hysteroscopy. The success rates were comparable between the two techniques. Therefore, vaginoscopy is a good option for office hysteroscopic examinations.
BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopy is a traditional diagnostic method, whereas vaginoscopy is a more recent but proven approach. However, most physicians are unfamiliar with vaginoscopy. We aimed to compare the feasibility and tolerability between the two techniques to increase clinical awareness. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 100 patients who underwent office hysteroscopy with either the standard approach or the vaginoscopic approach between May and July 2019. While the standard hysteroscopy group underwent speculum insertion and the cervix was grasped with forceps, the vaginoscopy group did not. The primary outcome was a successfully completed examination. Related outcomes were the pain score, complications, and absence of signs of infection at 1 week after completing the examination. RESULTS: The success rates of vaginoscopy and standard hysteroscopy were comparable (95.5% vs 96.3%). The median time to complete a vaginoscopy (135 seconds) was significantly shorter than to complete a standard hysteroscopy (190 seconds, p = 0.02). The median pain score was 3 for vaginoscopy, which was significantly lower than that for standard hysteroscopy (5; p = 0.01). There were no differences in the surgical complication rate between vaginoscopy (n = 4) and standard hysteroscopy (n = 3) (relative risk = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-6.00). CONCLUSION: Vaginoscopy required a shorter time for the completion of the examination and involved lesser pain than the standard hysteroscopy. The success rates were comparable between the two techniques. Therefore, vaginoscopy is a good option for office hysteroscopic examinations.