File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Randomized Study of Vaginoscopy and H Pipelle vs Traditional Hysteroscopy and Standard Pipelle
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleRandomized Study of Vaginoscopy and H Pipelle vs Traditional Hysteroscopy and Standard Pipelle
 
AuthorsNgu, SF1
Cheung, VYT1
Pun, TC1
 
KeywordsHysteroscopy
Pipelle endometrial sampler
Vaginoscopy
 
Issue Date2012
 
PublisherElsevier Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmig
 
CitationJournal Of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 2012, v. 19 n. 2, p. 206-211 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.12.007
 
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.
 
ISSN1553-4650
2013 Impact Factor: 1.575
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.12.007
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000301465000013
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorNgu, SF
 
dc.contributor.authorCheung, VYT
 
dc.contributor.authorPun, TC
 
dc.date.accessioned2012-03-27T09:04:58Z
 
dc.date.available2012-03-27T09:04:58Z
 
dc.date.issued2012
 
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.
 
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 2012, v. 19 n. 2, p. 206-211 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.12.007
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.12.007
 
dc.identifier.epage211
 
dc.identifier.hkuros198931
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000301465000013
 
dc.identifier.issn1553-4650
2013 Impact Factor: 1.575
 
dc.identifier.issue2
 
dc.identifier.pmid22265052
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84857626671
 
dc.identifier.spage206
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/145991
 
dc.identifier.volume19
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherElsevier Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmig
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.subjectHysteroscopy
 
dc.subjectPipelle endometrial sampler
 
dc.subjectVaginoscopy
 
dc.titleRandomized Study of Vaginoscopy and H Pipelle vs Traditional Hysteroscopy and Standard Pipelle
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Ngu, SF</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Cheung, VYT</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Pun, TC</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2012-03-27T09:04:58Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2012-03-27T09:04:58Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2012</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Journal Of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 2012, v. 19 n. 2, p. 206-211</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>1553-4650</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/145991</identifier.uri>
<description.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. &#169; 2012 AAGL.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Elsevier Inc. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmig</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology</relation.ispartof>
<subject>Hysteroscopy</subject>
<subject>Pipelle endometrial sampler</subject>
<subject>Vaginoscopy</subject>
<title>Randomized Study of Vaginoscopy and H Pipelle vs Traditional Hysteroscopy and Standard Pipelle</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1016/j.jmig.2011.12.007</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>22265052</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-84857626671</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>198931</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-84857626671&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>19</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>2</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>206</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>211</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000301465000013</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. The University of Hong Kong