File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: A prospective randomised study on vaginoscopyand H Pipelle versus traditional hysteroscopy andstandard pipelle

TitleA prospective randomised study on vaginoscopyand H Pipelle versus traditional hysteroscopy andstandard pipelle
Authors
Issue Date2012
PublisherWiley-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: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2012, v. 119 n. Supplement s1, p. 202 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: 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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/149295
ISSN
2014 Impact Factor: 3.448
2014 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.736

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNgu, SF-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, VYT-
dc.contributor.authorPun, TC-
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-22T06:35:13Z-
dc.date.available2012-06-22T06:35:13Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.citationThe RCOG 10th International Scientific Congress, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 5-8 June 2012. In BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2012, v. 119 n. Supplement s1, p. 202-
dc.identifier.issn1470-0328-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/149295-
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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.languageeng-
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.bjog.org/-
dc.relation.ispartofBJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology-
dc.rightsPreprint This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article]. Authors are not required to remove preprints posted prior to acceptance of the submitted version. Postprint This is the accepted version of the following article: [full citation], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article].-
dc.titleA prospective randomised study on vaginoscopyand H Pipelle versus traditional hysteroscopy andstandard pipelle-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.identifier.emailNgu, SF: ngusiewf@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailCheung, VYT: vytc@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailPun, TC: puntc@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityNgu, SF=rp01367-
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, VYT=rp01323-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03381.x-
dc.identifier.hkuros200199-
dc.identifier.volume119-
dc.identifier.issueSupplement s1-
dc.identifier.spage202-
dc.identifier.epage202-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats