File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Randomized Study of Vaginoscopy and H Pipelle vs Traditional Hysteroscopy and Standard Pipelle

TitleRandomized Study of Vaginoscopy and H Pipelle vs Traditional Hysteroscopy and Standard Pipelle
Authors
KeywordsHysteroscopy
Pipelle endometrial sampler
Vaginoscopy
Issue Date2012
PublisherElsevier Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmig
Citation
Journal Of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 2012, v. 19 n. 2, p. 206-211 How to Cite?
Abstract
Study Objective: To compare the use of vaginoscopic vs traditional hysteroscopy in evaluation of the endometrial cavity. Design: Prospective, randomized, single blinded, clinical trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). Setting: University-affiliated hospital in Hong Kong. Patients: Ninety women scheduled to undergo diagnostic hysteroscopy without anesthesia. Interventions: Women were randomized to undergo either vaginoscopic hysteroscopy using the H Pipelle for endometrial sampling (n = 45) or traditional hysteroscopy using the standard Pipelle (n = 45). Both procedures were performed without anesthesia and using a rigid 4.5-mm hysteroscope. Main outcome measures analyzed were pain scores using a 10-point visual analog scale during hysteroscopy, endometrial biopsy, and overall pain score of the procedure, success and duration of each procedure, and adequacy of the endometrial sample obtained. Measurements and Main Results: The success rates for vaginoscopic and traditional hysteroscopy were 93.33% and 100%, respectively (p=.24). There was no significant difference in the mean pain score and procedure duration between the 2 hysteroscopic approaches. Endometrial sampling using the H Pipelle was significantly quicker by about 45 seconds compared with use of the standard Pipelle (mean [SD] duration, 1.46 [0.72] min vs 2.20 [1.19] min, respectively; p=.001), with similar biopsy adequacy. Most women (95.5% in both approaches) found the procedure acceptable. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Conclusions: Vaginoscopic and traditional hysteroscopic approaches are similar in safety, feasibility, and associated pain. Although the time needed to obtain an endometrial sample using the H Pipelle was quicker than with the standard Pipelle, there is no difference in overall procedure duration. © 2012 AAGL.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/145991
ISSN
2013 Impact Factor: 1.575
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

Author Affiliations
  1. The University of Hong Kong
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNgu, SFen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCheung, VYTen_HK
dc.contributor.authorPun, TCen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2012-03-27T09:04:58Z-
dc.date.available2012-03-27T09:04:58Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_HK
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 2012, v. 19 n. 2, p. 206-211en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1553-4650en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/145991-
dc.description.abstractStudy Objective: To compare the use of vaginoscopic vs traditional hysteroscopy in evaluation of the endometrial cavity. Design: Prospective, randomized, single blinded, clinical trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). Setting: University-affiliated hospital in Hong Kong. Patients: Ninety women scheduled to undergo diagnostic hysteroscopy without anesthesia. Interventions: Women were randomized to undergo either vaginoscopic hysteroscopy using the H Pipelle for endometrial sampling (n = 45) or traditional hysteroscopy using the standard Pipelle (n = 45). Both procedures were performed without anesthesia and using a rigid 4.5-mm hysteroscope. Main outcome measures analyzed were pain scores using a 10-point visual analog scale during hysteroscopy, endometrial biopsy, and overall pain score of the procedure, success and duration of each procedure, and adequacy of the endometrial sample obtained. Measurements and Main Results: The success rates for vaginoscopic and traditional hysteroscopy were 93.33% and 100%, respectively (p=.24). There was no significant difference in the mean pain score and procedure duration between the 2 hysteroscopic approaches. Endometrial sampling using the H Pipelle was significantly quicker by about 45 seconds compared with use of the standard Pipelle (mean [SD] duration, 1.46 [0.72] min vs 2.20 [1.19] min, respectively; p=.001), with similar biopsy adequacy. Most women (95.5% in both approaches) found the procedure acceptable. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Conclusions: Vaginoscopic and traditional hysteroscopic approaches are similar in safety, feasibility, and associated pain. Although the time needed to obtain an endometrial sample using the H Pipelle was quicker than with the standard Pipelle, there is no difference in overall procedure duration. © 2012 AAGL.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmigen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecologyen_HK
dc.subjectHysteroscopyen_HK
dc.subjectPipelle endometrial sampleren_HK
dc.subjectVaginoscopyen_HK
dc.titleRandomized Study of Vaginoscopy and H Pipelle vs Traditional Hysteroscopy and Standard Pipelleen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailNgu, SF:ngusiewf@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailCheung, VYT:vytc@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityNgu, SF=rp01367en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, VYT=rp01323en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jmig.2011.12.007en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid22265052en_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84857626671en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros198931en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-84857626671&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume19en_HK
dc.identifier.issue2en_HK
dc.identifier.spage206en_HK
dc.identifier.epage211en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000301465000013-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNgu, SF=36872693100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheung, VYT=7005439023en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPun, TC=7005509306en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats