Literature DB >> 9050710

A comparison of clinical outcomes and cost of office versus hospital hysteroscopy.

D Hidlebaugh1.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To compare office hysteroscopy with suction biopsy versus the hospital procedure with respect to clinical outcomes, success rates, and cost.
DESIGN: Retrospective review of outpatient and inpatient records for all attempted office hysteroscopies with suction biopsy from September 1991 to June 1995, and all hospital diagnostic hysteroscopies with dilatation curettage from January 1993 to June 1994.
SETTING: Multispeciality office group practice and a university-affiliated private hospital. PATIENTS: Four hundred seventy-three women who had office hysteroscopy with suction biopsy and 95 who had hospital diagnostic hysteroscopy with dilatation curettage.
INTERVENTIONS: The procedures were performed by 13 gynecologists who had no experience with office hysteroscopy.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A cost analysis was completed by obtaining hospital and anesthesia charges for the hospital procedures and comparing them with office, instrument repair, and capital equipment costs. Gynecologists' professional fees were excluded from the analysis since they were the same in both settings. The overall failure rates to complete office and hospital hysteroscopies were 7.2% and 3.1%, respectively. Abnormal uterine bleeding was the indication in 89% of office and 96% of hospital procedures. Office hysteroscopy in these women revealed an abnormality in 40.1% of office versus 38.5% of hospital procedures. Histology revealed insufficient tissue for diagnosis in 3.4% office and 22.1% hospital procedures. The minor complication rate for office hysteroscopy was 1.9% and for hospital hysteroscopy 4.2%. There were no major complications in either group. The mean charges, excluding professional fees, for the hospital were $1799 versus $62 for office hysteroscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: Office hysteroscopy has a high success rate and a low complication rate even when performed by a group of gynecologists with limited experience in the procedure. Because of its lower cost and greater diagnostic accuracy, office hysteroscopy with suction biopsy should be the method of choice for evaluating gynecologic conditions such as abnormal bleeding.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 9050710     DOI: 10.1016/s1074-3804(96)80107-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc        ISSN: 1074-3804


  7 in total

1.  HYSTEROSCOPY IN POSTMENOPAUSAL BLEEDING.

Authors:  S Vardhan; S Mohan; P Ranjan
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

2.  Outpatient uterine assessment and treatment unit in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding: an economic modelling study.

Authors:  Alexandria Bennett; Kednapa Thavorn; Kristina Arendas; Doug Coyle; Sukhbir S Singh
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2020-12-08

3.  Safety considerations for office-based obstetric and gynecologic procedures.

Authors:  Richard D Urman; Nathan Punwani; Maryanne Bombaugh; Fred E Shapiro
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013

4.  The efficacy, cost and patient satisfaction of classic versus office hysteroscopy in cases with suspected intrauterine space occupying lesions with 3-dimension ultrasound and abnormal uterine bleeding.

Authors:  Tarık Filiz; Emek Doğer; Aydın Corakçı; Semih Ozeren; Eray Calışkan
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2009-12-01

5.  Cost-effectiveness of office hysteroscopy for abnormal uterine bleeding.

Authors:  Nash S Moawad; Estefania Santamaria; Megan Johnson; Jonathan Shuster
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

6.  Office Cervicoscopy versus Stationary Colposcopy in Suspicious Cervix: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Atef Mohammad Darwish; Momen Ahmad Kamel; Kamal Zahran; Mostafa Aboulela
Journal:  J Midlife Health       Date:  2019 Jul-Sep

Review 7.  Hysteroscopy: an analysis of 2-years' experience.

Authors:  L Mettler; E M D R Wendland; P Patel; R Caballero; T Schollmeyer
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2002 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.