Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on November 18, 2004
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/deh559
© 2004 by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/1/258    most recent
deh559v1
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Campo, R.
Right arrow Articles by Gordts, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Campo, R.
Right arrow Articles by Gordts, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Received July 23, 2004
Accepted September 17, 2004

Article

Prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate factors influencing the success rate of office diagnostic hysteroscopy

Rudi Campo 1, Carlos Roger Molinas 1*, Luk Rombauts 2, Greet Mestdagh 3, Martin Lauwers 1, Paul Braekmans 1, Ivo Brosens 1, Yves Van Belle 4, and Stephan Gordts 1

1 Leuven Institute for Fertility and Embryology (LIFE), Leuven, Belgium
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
3 Genk Institute of Fertility Technologies (GIFT), Genk, Belgium
4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sint Jan Hospital, Brussels, Belgium

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Carlos Roger Molinas, E-mail: roger.molinas{at}lifeleuven.be


  Abstract

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.

Keywords: diagnostic; mini-hysteroscopy; office; pain; visualization.
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 Reprod UpdateHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
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]

Home page
 ESHRE MonogrHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]


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.