Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on November 18, 2004
Human Reproduction 2005 20(1):258-263; doi:10.1093/humrep/deh559
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate factors influencing the success rate of office diagnostic hysteroscopy
1 Leuven Institute for Fertility and Embryology (LIFE), Leuven, 3 Genk Institute of Fertility Technologies (GIFT), Genk, 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sint Jan Hospital, Brussels, Belgium and 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
5 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Leuven Institute for Fertility and Embryology (LIFE), Tiensevest 168, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email: roger.molinas{at}lifeleuven.be
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic hysteroscopy is not widely performed in the office setting, one of the reasons being the discomfort produced by the procedure. This randomized controlled trial was performed to evaluate the effects of instrument diameter, patient parity and surgeon experience on the pain suffered and success rate of the procedure. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to undergo office diagnostic hysteroscopy either with 5.0 mm conventional instruments (n=240) or with 3.5 mm mini-instruments (n=240). Procedures were stratified according to patient parity and surgeon's previous experience. The pain experienced during the procedure (0–10), the quality of visualization of the uterine cavity (0–3) and the complications were recorded. The examination was considered successful when the pain score was <4, visualization score was >1 and no complication occurred. RESULTS: Less pain, better visualization and higher success rates were observed with mini-hysteroscopy (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively), in patients with vaginal deliveries (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively) and in procedures performed by experienced surgeons (P = 0.02, P = NS and P = NS, respectively). The effects of patient parity and surgeon experience were no longer important when mini-hysteroscopy was used. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate the advantages of mini-hysteroscopy and the importance of patient parity and surgeon experience, suggesting that mini-hysteroscopy should always be used, especially for inexperienced surgeons and when difficult access to the uterine cavity is anticipated. They indicate that mini-hysteroscopy can be offered as a first line office diagnostic procedure.
Key words: diagnostic/mini-hysteroscopy/office/pain/visualization
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Ombelet, I. Cooke, S. Dyer, G. Serour, and P. Devroey Infertility and the provision of infertility medical services in developing countries Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2008; 14(6): 605 - 621. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Campo and C. R. Molinas Modern endoscopic-based exploration of the female reproductive tract: a model for developing countries? ESHRE Monogr, July 1, 2008; 2008(1): 54 - 59. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. E. Silberzweig Incidence of Pain During Hysterosalpingography Using a Balloon Catheter Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): W48 - W48. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Guida, A.o Di Spiezi Sardo, G. Acunzo, S. Sparice, S. Bramante, R. Piccoli, G. Bifulco, D. Cirillo, M. Pellicano, and C. Nappi Vaginoscopic versus traditional office hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled study Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2006; 21(12): 3253 - 3257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|