Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Litta, P.
Right arrow Articles by Dessole, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Litta, P.
Right arrow Articles by Dessole, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

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

Pietro Litta1, Michela Bonora1, Chiara Pozzan1, Federica Merlin1, Giuseppe Sacco1, Mara Fracas1, Giampiero Capobianco2 and Salvatore Dessole2,3

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


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
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]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
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]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.