File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03381.x
- Find via
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Conference Paper: A prospective randomised study on vaginoscopyand H Pipelle versus traditional hysteroscopy andstandard pipelle
Title | A prospective randomised study on vaginoscopyand H Pipelle versus traditional hysteroscopy andstandard pipelle |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2012 |
Publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.bjog.org/ |
Citation | The RCOG 10th International Scientific Congress, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 5-8 June 2012. In BJOG, 2012, v. 119 suppl. S1, p. 202 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Objective: To compare the use of vaginoscopic versus traditionalhysteroscopy in the evaluation of 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 for diagnostic hysteroscopyunder no anaesthesia.Methods: Women were randomised to undergo eithervaginoscopic hysteroscopy using the H Pipelle for endometrialsampling (n = 45) or traditional hysteroscopy using the standardPipelle (n = 45). Both procedures were performed under noanaesthesia using a rigid 4.5 mm hysteroscope. Main outcomemeasures analyzed were pain scores using a 10-cm visual analoguescale during hysteroscopy, endometrial biopsy and the overall painsore of procedure, successfulness and duration of each procedure,and adequacy of endometrial sample obtained.Results: The success rate for vaginoscopic and traditionalhysteroscopy were 93.33% and 100%, respectively (P = 0.24).There was no significant difference in the mean pain score andprocedure duration between the two hysteroscopic approaches.Endometrial sampling with H Pipelle was significantly quicker byabout 45 s compared to the standard Pipelle [duration(mean ± SD, min): 1.46 ± 0.72 vs. 2.20 ± 1.19 respectively,P = 0.001] with similar biopsy adequacy. Most women (95.5% inboth approaches) found the procedure acceptable. There was nointra- and postoperative complications.Conclusions: Vaginoscopic and traditional hysteroscopicapproaches are similar in safety, feasibility and women’s painexperience. Shorter duration is needed to obtain an endometrialsampling using the H Pipelle than the standard Pipelle. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/149295 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 4.7 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.858 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Ngu, SF | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cheung, VYT | - |
dc.contributor.author | Pun, TC | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-06-22T06:35:13Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-06-22T06:35:13Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | The RCOG 10th International Scientific Congress, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 5-8 June 2012. In BJOG, 2012, v. 119 suppl. S1, p. 202 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1470-0328 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/149295 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Objective: To compare the use of vaginoscopic versus traditionalhysteroscopy in the evaluation of 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 for diagnostic hysteroscopyunder no anaesthesia.Methods: Women were randomised to undergo eithervaginoscopic hysteroscopy using the H Pipelle for endometrialsampling (n = 45) or traditional hysteroscopy using the standardPipelle (n = 45). Both procedures were performed under noanaesthesia using a rigid 4.5 mm hysteroscope. Main outcomemeasures analyzed were pain scores using a 10-cm visual analoguescale during hysteroscopy, endometrial biopsy and the overall painsore of procedure, successfulness and duration of each procedure,and adequacy of endometrial sample obtained.Results: The success rate for vaginoscopic and traditionalhysteroscopy were 93.33% and 100%, respectively (P = 0.24).There was no significant difference in the mean pain score andprocedure duration between the two hysteroscopic approaches.Endometrial sampling with H Pipelle was significantly quicker byabout 45 s compared to the standard Pipelle [duration(mean ± SD, min): 1.46 ± 0.72 vs. 2.20 ± 1.19 respectively,P = 0.001] with similar biopsy adequacy. Most women (95.5% inboth approaches) found the procedure acceptable. There was nointra- and postoperative complications.Conclusions: Vaginoscopic and traditional hysteroscopicapproaches are similar in safety, feasibility and women’s painexperience. Shorter duration is needed to obtain an endometrialsampling using the H Pipelle than the standard Pipelle. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.bjog.org/ | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology | - |
dc.title | A prospective randomised study on vaginoscopyand H Pipelle versus traditional hysteroscopy andstandard pipelle | - |
dc.type | Conference_Paper | - |
dc.identifier.email | Ngu, SF: ngusiewf@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Cheung, VYT: vytc@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Pun, TC: puntc@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Ngu, SF=rp01367 | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Cheung, VYT=rp01323 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03381.x | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 200199 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 119 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | suppl. S1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 202 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 202 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1470-0328 | - |