Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 11, 2446-2449,
November 2003
© 2003 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Carbon dioxide versus normal saline in outpatient hysteroscopy
1 Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Padua and 2 Department of Pharmacology, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Sassari, Italy
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Pharmacology, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Sassari, Viale San Pietro 12, Sassari 07100, Italy. e-mail: dessole{at}uniss.it
BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective randomized study was to measure patients’ discomfort after hysteroscopy with CO2 or normal saline. METHODS: A total of 415 patients was randomized to two groups according to distension medium (CO2, n = 201; normal saline, n = 214). The nature of randomization was to alternate distension media on a weekly basis. After hysteroscopy, women were asked to rate the pain experienced on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (0 = no pain; 100 = worst imaginable pain). Pain scores were expressed as mean ± SD (0–40 = minimal; 41–70 = moderate; 71–100 = severe). Data were analysed using Student’s t-test. RESULTS: Irrespective of the distension medium used, pelvic discomfort was worse in nulliparous women (pain score 39.0 ± 26.5) than in multiparous women (30.4 ± 25.9) (P < 0.05), especially if they were premenopausal. For all patients and both distension media, pelvic discomfort was generally minimal but higher in patients who had undergone hysteroscopy with normal saline (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CO2 and normal saline were comparable with regard to patient discomfort, but in terms of the high frequency of abnormal uterine bleeding, normal saline may be the most appropriate distension medium for outpatient hysteroscopy.
Key words: distension media/outpatient hysteroscopy/pain measurement/visual analogue scale
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Bosteels, S. Weyers, P. Puttemans, C. Panayotidis, B. Van Herendael, V. Gomel, B. W.J. Mol, C. Mathieu, and T. D'Hooghe The effectiveness of hysteroscopy in improving pregnancy rates in subfertile women without other gynaecological symptoms: a systematic review Hum. Reprod. Update, September 10, 2009; (2009) dmp033v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. Garbin, R. Kutnahorsky, J.L. Gollner, and C. Vayssiere Vaginoscopic versus conventional approaches to outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy: a two-centre randomized prospective study Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 2996 - 3000. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Paschopoulos, A. Kaponis, G. Makrydimas, K. Zikopoulos, Y. Alamanos, P. O'Donovan, and E. Paraskevaidis Selecting distending medium for out-patient hysteroscopy. Does it really matter? Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2619 - 2625. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|