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

File Download Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

  • 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
2011 Impact Factor: 1.738
2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.115
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.12.007
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
DC Field
Value
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
2011 Impact Factor: 1.738
2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.115
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
Author Affiliations
  1. The University of Hong Kong