Paracervical anaesthesia in outpatient hysteroscopy: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Comparison of the effects of spinal anesthesia, paracervical block and general anesthesia on pain, nausea and vomiting, and analgesic requirements in diagnostic hysteroscopy: A non-randomized clinical trial

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of spinal anesthesia (SPA), paracervical block (PB), and general anesthesia (GA), on pain, the frequency of nausea and vomiting and analgesic requirements in diagnostic hysteroscopy.

Methods

This single-center, non-randomized, parallel-group, clinical trial was conducted on 66 diagnostic hysteroscopy candidates who were selected by convenience sampling at Fatemieh Hospital, in Hamadan, Iran, in 2021.

Results

The mean pain score during recovery and the need for analgesic injections was found to be significantly higher in the GA group compared to that in the SPA group (pain: 3.77 ± 2.25 vs. 0.10 ± 0.30, P < 0.001), (analgesic: 50 vs. 0%, P < 0.001) and PB group (pain: 3.77 ± 2.25 vs. 0.90 ± 1.37, P < 0.001), (analgesic 50 vs. 10%, P < 0.001), respectively. However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the mean pain score between SPA and PB groups (0.10 ± 0.30 vs. 0.90 ± 1.3, P = 0.661). In addition, there were no significant differences between groups on nausea/vomiting after operation (P = 0.382). In adjusted regression analysis (adjusting for age, weight, gravid, abortion, and cause of hysteroscopy), the odds ratio (OR) of pain score during recovery was increased in PB (OR: 4.471, 95% CI: 1.527-6.156, P = 0.018) and GA (OR: 8.406, 95% CI: 2.421-9.195, P = 0.001) groups compared with the SPA group. However, in adjusting based on times of surgery duration, anesthesia duration, recovery and return of motor function, the ORs of pain score between groups was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Despite reduced pain during recovery in patients receiving SPA, duration of anesthesia, recovery period, and return of motor function were significantly prolonged compared to those receiving PB or GA. It seems that PB with less recovery time and faster return of motor function than SPA and also mild pain during recovery compared to GA can be a good option for hysteroscopy.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.irct.ir, identifier IRCT20120915010841N26.

Four year evaluation of therapeutic hysteroscopy under procedural sedation in an outpatient clinic

OBJECTIVE

Due to the evolution of hysteroscopic instruments, therapeutic hysteroscopic procedures are increasingly performed in an outpatient, office-based setting. The most important limiting factor of performing these hysteroscopic treatments is patient discomfort. Procedural Sedation Analgesia (PSA) decreases patient discomfort and anxiety. The main goal of this study is to determine safety, feasibility and patient satisfaction of therapeutic hysteroscopy performed under procedural sedation in an outpatient clinic. Our second objective was to compare 9 mm scopes with smaller diameter scopes.

STUDY DESIGN

All consecutive patients suitable for procedural sedation and scheduled for a therapeutic hysteroscopy in the outpatient clinic were prospectively included from February 2014 to November 2018 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands. A variety of therapeutic hysteroscopies procedures was performed including myomectomy, removal of retained products of conception and endometrial ablation. Therapeutic hysteroscopes with 3.8 mm, 5 mm and 9 mm diameter were used. In all selected women procedure time, admission time, pain scores, anaesthesiologic and procedural complications were assessed. All women received a questionnaire on patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

In total 455 patients underwent a therapeutic hysteroscopy. Median procedure time was 11 min (2-63 min) and median admission time was 130 min (30-480 min). Median pain score according to the visual analog scale (VAS) before, during and after procedure were respectively 0 (0-10), 0 (0-4) and 0 (0-9). Anaesthesiologic complication rate was 4.4 %, all minor. Procedural complications consisted of infection postoperatively (0.4 %), excessive blood loss during procedure (0.6 %) and perforation (0.4 %). Procedure was incomplete in 3.3 % of all procedures. Patient satisfaction was high, as 96 % of the women were satisfied. No differences were found in pain scores, VAS 0 versus 1 after the procedure, between 3.8 or 5 mm and 9 mm scopes.

CONCLUSION

It is safe and feasible to perform a therapeutic hysteroscopy under procedural sedation in an outpatient setting, with low pain scores and a high degree of patient satisfaction, also when large diameter instruments are used.

Pain Perception and Side Effects During Saline Infusion Sonohysterography With a Balloon Catheter: A Randomized Comparative Study of Cervical Versus Intrauterine Catheter Placement

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate whether the site of the balloon placement into either the uterine cavity or cervical canal can affect the intensity of pain during sonohysterography.

METHODS

In this randomized clinical trial, women who underwent saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) were randomized to intracervical or intrauterine balloon placement between May 2012 and May 2014. The examination was scheduled at the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. The primary outcome measures included the degree of pain after inflation and then after deflation of the balloon catheter. Data were analyzed on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle for each woman who underwent SIS.

RESULTS

A total of 300 infertile women were assigned to the treatment groups. There were no significant differences in inflation and deflation pain and the total procedure time between the 2 groups. The total volume of required saline for adequate distention of the cavity was significantly lower in the cervical group than the intrauterine group (p = .015). Nulliparous women had insignificantly more pain after the initial inflation of the balloon compared with multiparous women (p = .069). The pain score was not associated with patients' age, the volume of the saline infused, the presence of intrauterine abnormality, and the procedure time.

CONCLUSIONS

Intracervical catheter placement did not reduce pain during or after SIS. However, intracervical balloon insertion requires a less-significant volume of saline compared with intrauterine placement, leading to a reduced risk of intrauterine infection and the spread of malignant endometrial cells into the peritoneal cavity at the time of the procedure.

Effects of high-frequency, high-intensity transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation versus intravenous opioids for pain relief after hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the time spent in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) and the pain-relieving effects of treatment with high-frequency, high-intensity transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or intravenous (IV) opioids after hysteroscopy.

METHODS

All patients who postoperatively reported a visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score of ≥3 were included in the study. TENS treatment was given with a stimulus intensity between 40 and 60 mA for 1 minute and repeated once if there was insufficient pain relief. In the opioid group, a fractionated dose of 5 mg morphine was administered. If the patient reported insufficient pain relief after the assigned treatment, the patient was reassigned to the other treatment group.

RESULTS

Seventy-four women were randomized to TENS (n=38) or IV opioids (n=36) for treatment. Both groups reported significant pain relief after discharge from the PACU, with a decrease of VAS scores from 5.6 to 1.4 in the TENS group (P<0.001) and 5.1 to 1.3 in the opioid group (P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups. When only the responders in both groups, i.e., patients with VAS scores of <3 on respectively assigned treatments, were compared, the TENS responders (n=22) were found to have spent a significantly shorter time in the PACU (91 vs. 69 minutes, P=0.013) compared to the opioid responders (n=20).

CONCLUSION

Using TENS as first line of pain relief may reduce the need for postoperative opioids. In addition, TENS appears preferable as the first line of treatment due to its association with a shorter time spent in the PACU if the patient responds to the treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Västra Götalandsregionen Identifier: 211261.

Use of video-based multimedia information to reduce anxiety before office hysteroscopy

Introduction

Use of multimedia tools has been shown to improve patient comprehension, reduce pre-procedural anxiety, and increase patient satisfaction in various surgical settings.

Aim

To investigate the impact of video-based multimedia information (MMI) on the anxiety levels of patients undergoing office hysteroscopy (OH).

Material and methods

All consecutive women aged 18–65 years and scheduled for diagnostic OH were enrolled in this prospective randomized study. Subjects were assigned to receive video-based MMI or conventional written information (controls). The trait and state anxiety were assessed using the State and Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) before the MMI or written information. STAI-state (STAI-S) was repeated after application of the MMI or written information. All patients underwent a standardized transvaginal hysteroscopy procedure by the same gynecologist. Following the hysteroscopy, patient satisfaction and procedural pain were ranked using a Likert scale and visual analogue scale.

Results

Fifty-two patients were randomized to receive a video-based MMI, and 52 patients were randomized to receive written information. Post-information STAI-S score was significantly lower in the MMI group than that of the written information group (45.0 ±8.0 vs. 49.4 ±8.4, p < 0.001, 95% CI for the difference: 1.36–7.79). Moreover, the satisfaction rate of the video group was significantly higher than the satisfaction rate of the controls (92.3% vs. 63.5%, p < 0.001). VAS score of procedural pain was similar for the two groups.

Conclusions

A video-based MMI before OH might be preferred to conventional information methods in order to reduce the pre-procedural anxiety and to increase patients’ satisfaction.

Local anaesthesia for office hysteroscopy: A systematic review & meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of different types and routes of administration of local anaesthetic for pain control during and after office hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane library were searched from inception until October 2019, in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials investigating the use of a local anaesthetic compared to a control, for pain relief in women undergoing diagnostic or operative office hysteroscopy. Average pain scores and data regarding side-effects, feasibility, complications, acceptability and satisfaction were collected.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 612 citations. A total of 37 studies were included for systematic review, of which data from 20 studies were used for meta-analysis. Local anaesthesia was associated with significantly reduced pain during (SMD -0.57, 95 % CI -0.79 to -0.34) and after (SMD -0.30, 95 % CI -0.54 to -0.06) office hysteroscopy but did not reduce vasovagal episodes (OR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.50-1.09). A reduction in intra-procedural pain was observed regardless of type or route of administration. Local anaesthesia did not significantly reduce the risk of procedural failure (OR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.47-1.11). Insufficient data regarding complications, acceptability and satisfaction were available for meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Local anaesthesia via any route of genital tract administration, should be considered when undertaking office diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy to reduce pain during and after the procedure. Further research is needed to understand whether the pain control benefits of local anaesthesia remain apparent with vaginoscopic approaches to office hysteroscopy that avoid genital tract instrumentation.

Evaluation and ranking of different interventions for pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

To identify the highest-ranked pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy.

METHODS

We conducted an online bibliographic search in different databases from inception till July 2019. We included randomized controlled trials assessing effect of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions on pain relief during outpatient hysteroscopy. Our main outcomes were pain scores at different endpoints of the procedure. We applied this network meta-analysis based on the frequentist approach using statistical package 'netmeta' (version 1.0-1) in R.

RESULTS

The review included 39 randomized controlled trials (Women n = 3964). Misoprostol plus intracervical block anesthesia (mean difference [MD] = -3.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-6.06, -0.59]), misoprostol (MD = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.04, -0.81]) and IV analgesia (MD = -2.01, 95% CI [-3.27, -0.25]) were effective in reducing pain during the procedure compared to placebo. Ranking probability showed that misoprostol plus intracervical block anesthesia was the highest ranked pharmacological treatment for pain relief during the procedure (P score = 0.92) followed by misoprostol alone (P score = 0.78), and IV analgesia (P score = 0.76). Regarding nonpharmacological treatments, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) showed a significant pain reduction compared to placebo (MD = -1.80, 95% CI [-3.31, -0.29]). TENS ranked as the best nonpharmacological treatment (P score = 0.80) followed by CO₂ distention (P score = 0.65) and bladder distention (P score = 0.60).

CONCLUSION

Combination of misoprostol plus local anesthesia appears to be the most effective pharmacological approach for pain reduction during and after outpatient hysteroscopy. Nonpharmacological approaches as TENS and bladder distention showed considerable efficacy but should be further investigated.

Low-Dose Ketamine for Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Prospective, Randomised, Double-Blind Study

Objective

Outpatient hysteroscopy is often accompanied by pain and discomfort along with frequent occurrence of bradycardia and hypotension. This study aimed to observe if intravenous low-dose ketamine reduces the pain scores along with lowering the incidence of bradycardia and hypotension during hysteroscopy.

Methods

This prospective, randomised, double-blind trial was conducted in operating rooms in a tertiary care hospital. In this study, we enrolled 72 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists status I to II undergoing hysteroscopy. We randomised patients into two groups, and both groups received paracervical block. The control group received intravenous pentazocine and promethazine along with saline infusion. The ketamine group received ketamine infusion (0.75 mg kg⁻¹ bolus followed by infusion at the rate of 10 mcg kg⁻¹ min⁻¹). We analysed visual analogue scale (VAS), rescue analgesic consumption, hemodynamic parameters, lowest recorded heart rate, blood pressure, level of sedation, patient’s comfort, surgeon’s satisfaction and nursing staff’s satisfaction.

Results

Analysis of the data revealed that the pain scores were similar in both the groups (p=0.493, p<0.001). Rescue analgesic was required by 47% patients in control group, compared to only 5.6% patients in ketamine group. Episodes of bradycardia and hypotension were more pronounced in the control group than in the ketamine group [77.4±10.9 vs. 78.4±5.5; 67.6±8 vs. 70.1±6 respectively] (p<0.001). Patient comfort and surgeon’s satisfaction were higher in the ketamine group, but nursing satisfaction was higher in the control group. Disorientation was present in 75% patients in the ketamine group as compared to none in the control group.

Conclusion

We concluded that low-dose ketamine in day-care hysteroscopy is an effective and safe agent.

Efficacy and safety of Tramadol as an analgesic in women undergoing vaginoscopic hysteroscopy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

Pain or discomfort during the hysteroscopy remains a challenge even after the introduction of small calibre instruments and vaginoscopic techniques. Tramadol, a centrally acting analgesic, is one among the medications used to reduce pain; however, the experience with its use in the vaginoscopic technique is limited. This was a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted to study the effectiveness of oral Tramadol as an analgesic in 100 women undergoing diagnostic vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. Median pain score assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale was lower in the study group compared to the placebo group during the procedure (7 versus 8; p < .001) and immediately after the procedure (6 versus 7; p < .001) Ease of entry, procedure entry time and the adverse effects were similar in both the groups. Administration of oral Tramadol 50 mg, 1 h prior to the procedure may be a safe and effective analgesic in women undergoing diagnostic vaginoscopic hysteroscopy.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Even with the use of newer hysteroscopes with small calibres and vaginoscopic techniques, pain and discomfort to the patient during negotiation through the cervix remain the main challenge to the surgeon. Among the several medications reported to reduce pain during the procedure, Tramadol a centrally acting drug with dual analgesic action, both by the µ opioid receptor agonist action and by the inhibiting uptake of serotonin and norepinephrine, can be used. However, studies using oral Tramadol during vaginoscopic hysteroscopy are limited.What do the results of this study add? The median pain score assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale was lower in the study group compared to the placebo group during the procedure (7 versus 8; p < .001) and immediately after the procedure (6 versus 7; p < .001). Ease of entry, procedure entry time and the adverse effects were similar in both the groups.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? This study suggests that administration of oral Tramadol 50 mg, 1 h prior to the procedure, may be used as a safe and effective analgesic in women undergoing diagnostic vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. Future trial with a larger sample size is required to confirm the tolerability of its use, as the incidence of adverse effects was low in the study.

Use of Topical Lidocaine Gel Plus Paracervical Blockade vs. Paracervical Blockade Alone for Pain Management During Manual Vacuum Aspiration: ADouble-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if the use of lidocaine gel applied to the cervix prior to manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) in addition to paracervical blockade is useful in reducing the level of pain associated with the procedure.

METHODS

A total of 88 patients were randomized to receive either 5 mL of lidocaine gel or a placebo applied topically to the cervix 5 minutes prior to paracervical blockade. Both groups received the same drugs for pain control (tramadol hydrochloride, diazepam, and sodium diclofenac). A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for evaluation of pain intensity at two times: 2 minutes before the blockade (directly after tenaculum clamping of the anterior aspect of the cervix) and after MVA of the uterine cavity.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in pain intensity between the arms of the study. At the first evaluation time (cervical clamping), VAS pain score for the placebo group (control) was 3.6 (2.1) and that for the lidocaine gel group (case) was 1.2 (1.4) (P < 0.01). At the second evaluation time (after manual vacuum aspiration), VAS pain score perceived by the control group was 5.3 (2.5) and that for the case group was 3.1 (1.9) (P < 0.01). The use of lidocaine gel was not associated with any adverse effects of interest.

CONCLUSION

The use of a topical lidocaine gel plus paracervical blockade was effective in reducing the intensity of pain associated with MVA when compared to paracervical blockade alone.

Pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Hysteroscopy is increasingly performed in an outpatient setting. Pain is the primary reason for abandonment of procedure or incomplete assessment. There is no consensus upon routine use of analgesia during hysteroscopy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for pain relief in women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy, compared with placebo, no treatment or other pharmacological therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP), together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of pharmacological interventions with other pharmacological interventions and pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was mean pain score.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTS (3304 participants), of which only 19 reported data suitable for analysis. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in most of the domains assessed. The evidence was low or very low quality, mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. Baseline pain scores were relatively low in all groups. Analgesic versus placebo or no treatment Local anaesthetics Local anaesthetics reduced mean pain scores during the procedure [(SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.19, 10 RCTs, 1496 women, I2 = 80%, low-quality evidence)] and within 30 minutes (SMD 0.50, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.33, 5 RCTs, 545 women, I2 = 43%, low-quality evidence). This translates to a difference of up to 7 mm on a 0-10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) during the procedure and up to 13 mm within 30 minutes, which is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in mean pain scores after > 30 minutes (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07, 4 RCTs, 450 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence), or in rates of vasovagal reactions (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13, 8 RCTs, 1309 women, I2 = 66%, very low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of non-pelvic pain (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 5.80, 1 RCT, 99 women, very low-quality evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in mean pain scores during the procedure (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.00, 3 RCTs, 521 women, I2 = 81%, low-quality evidence). Pain scores were lower in the NSAIDs group within 30 minutes (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.04, 2 RCTs, 340 women, I2=29%, low-quality evidence) and at over 30 minutes (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.05, 2 RCTs, 321 women, I2 = 78%, low-quality evidence). This equates to maximum differences of under 7.5 mm on a 0-10 cm scale, which are unlikely to be clinically significant. One RCT (181 women) reported adverse events: there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in vasovagal reactions (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.94, very low-quality evidence). For other reported adverse events (non pelvic pain and allergic reactions) evidence was lacking. Opioids One RCT utilised sublingual buprenorphine and one utilised oral tramadol. Data on pain scores during the procedure were unsuitable for pooling due to inconsistency. Tramadol was associated with a benefit of up to 22 mm on a 0-10 cm scale (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 140 women). However, the effect estimate for this outcome for sublingual opioids did not support a benefit from the intervention (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.39, 164 women). Compared with placebo, the pain score within 30 minutes of the procedure was reduced in the tramadol group, with a difference of up to 17mm on a 0-10cm scale (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.23 , 1 RCT, 140 women, low-quality evidence. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the tramadol and placebo groups at over 30 minutes (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.16, 1 RCT, 140 women, low-quality evidence). Nausea and vomiting occurred in 39% of the buprenorphine group, and in none of the placebo group (OR 107.55, 95% CI 6.44 to 1796.46) Analgesic versus any other analgesic Some comparisons did not report pain scores at all time frames of interest, and none reported data on adverse events. One RCT (84 women) compared local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia. Pain scores were higher in the group with local intracervical anaesthesia during the procedure (SMD 4.27, 95% CI 3.49 to 5.06, very low-quality evidence), within 30 minutes (SMD 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.05, very low-quality evidence) and at more than 30 minutes (SMD 3.47, 95% CI 2.78 to 4.15, very low-quality evidence). This translates to a possible benefit in the combined group of up to 12 mm on a 0-10 cm scale during the procedure. Benefits at longer follow-up were smaller. One RCT compared antispasmodic + NSAID versus local paracervical anaesthesia. Pain scores were lower in the NSAID group than in the local anaesthesia group (during procedure: SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.90 to -0.91; >30 minutes after procedure: SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.41; 80 women, very low-quality evidence). This suggests a possible benefit of during the procedure of up to 23 mm on a 0-10 VAS scale and up to 11 mm >30 minutes after the procedure. Other comparisons included local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical, paracervical and topical anaesthesia, and opioid versus NSAIDs. Findings were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistent good-quality evidence of a clinically meaningful difference in safety or effectiveness between different types of pain relief compared with each other or with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy.

Evaluation of Paracervical Block and IV Sedation for Pain Management during Hysteroscopic Polypectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of paracervical block (PB) and IV sedation (IVS) on women's pain perception during operative hysteroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 84 patients with uterine polyps were randomized to either PB or IV sedation or general anesthesia (GA) as control group. In PB group, the patients received oral diazepam 10 mg and 100 mg diclofenac Na suppository 60 min before surgery and 10 cc of 2% buffered lidocaine was injected at cervix. Conscious sedation was performed with the IV administration of 2-3 mg/kg/h propofol 1% and midazolam 0.02 mg/kg and fentanyl (1-2 μg/kg) with o2 4-5 lit/min via face mask.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between groups on VAS score at 3 hours after operation (PB: 1.22 ± (1.31), IVS: 1.10 ± (1.68), GA: 1.29 ± (2.03), P = 0.671) and during recovery (PB: 0.85 ± (1.06), IVS: 0.68 ± (1.33), GA: 1.21 ± (2.04), P = 0.458). There was no difference between PB (3.33 ± (2.81)) and IVS (2.31 ± (2.63)) groups at hysteroscopy (P = 0.182). Patients undergoing IVS reported lower VAS score than PB group at dilation and curettage, although the difference was not statistically significant (PB: 2.59 ± (1.78), IVS: 1.72 ± (2.34), P = 0.051). Moreover, patients undergoing IVS obtained lower VAS score than PB group at polypectomy, while the difference was not statistically significant (PB: 1.81 ± (1.52), IVS: 1.10 ± (1.32), P = 0.073).

CONCLUSION

The finding of the present study revealed that IVS and PB showed the same effect in reducing pain during and after gynecological surgical procedures. The study was registered in Iranian Registry of Clinical Trial with the number IRCT2016031426855N3, on April 28, 2016.

Effect of Cervical Lidocaine Gel for Pain Relief in Pipelle Endometrial Sampling

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of cervical lidocaine gel in reducing patient discomfort during Pipelle endometrial sampling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From September 2012 to January 2013, 137 patients were evaluated with Pipelle endometrial biopsy. For group 1 (77 women), 2% lidocaine gel was applied to the cervical canal 3 min before endometrial sampling. For group 2 (60 women), a placebo gel was applied. The pain experienced by the patients during biopsy was evaluated using a 100 mm visual analog scale.

RESULTS

The pain score was significantly lower during suction curettage (T3) in the group 1 than in the group 2. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of pain score in other stages of the procedure (2.6±1.3 and 4.5±1.4; p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Cervical 2% lidocaine gel is simple and effective for decreasing pain associated with Pipelle endometrial biopsy.

Randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of topical lidocaine gel and intrauterine lidocaine infusion for pain relief during saline contrast sonohysterography

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of topical lidocaine gel and intrauterine lidocaine infusion administered prior to saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH) in reducing pain level during the procedure.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. We recruited 120 women scheduled to undergo SCSH and randomized them into one of three groups according to administration of gel and intrauterine infusion immediately prior to the procedure: (1) the 'lidocaine gel' group received 3 mL 2% lidocaine gel applied to the cervix and intrauterine infusion, using an infant feeding tube without balloon, of 5 mL normal saline; (2) the 'lidocaine infusion' group received 3 mL gel lubricant applied to the cervix and intrauterine infusion of 5 mL 2% lidocaine; (3) the placebo group received 3 mL gel lubricant applied to the cervix and intrauterine infusion of 5 mL normal saline. The tube was left in place for the SCSH procedure. The primary outcome measure was the overall pain level (on a scale of 0-100) reported by the women during the SCSH procedure. Women also rated their pain levels at various other time points and an observer assessed visible signs of the women's discomfort during the procedure, producing a distress score.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences among the three groups in baseline characteristics, volume of saline solution infused, tenaculum use and duration and difficulty level of the SCSH procedure. The median (range) pain scores during normal saline infusion for the SCSH procedure were 0 (0-65) in the placebo group, 2.5 (0-80) in the lidocaine gel group, and 0 (0-70) in the lidocaine infusion group. The pain scores at other time points, the overall pain score and the distress score were also comparable for the three groups. No significant adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

SCSH performed with an infant feeding tube without balloon is associated with very low pain levels. Topical lidocaine gel application and intrauterine lidocaine infusion do not further reduce pain levels during SCSH.

Effect of lidocaine spray in pain management during office-based endometrial sampling: A randomised placebo-controlled trial

Office-based endometrial sampling is the most frequently performed gynaecological procedure. The procedure is usually associated with pain and discomfort. Several anaesthetic and analgesic techniques (e.g., non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracervical block, misoprostol and topical anaesthetics) are used for pain management during endometrial sampling. There is no comprehensive study using lidocaine in spray form; we sought to investigate the analgesic efficacy of 10% lidocaine spray in patients undergoing office-based endometrial biopsy. We conducted a prospective, randomised (lidocaine spray (n = 60) and placebo (n = 60), respectively), double-blind study. The mean pain score during procedure was 3.51 ± 1.51 in the lidocaine spray group and 5.11 ± 1.66 in the placebo group. Lidocaine spray treatment significantly lowered the pain scores compared with placebo (p < 0.001). Lidocaine spray can be accepted as a non-invasive, easy to apply and more comfortable anaesthetic method for office-based endometrial sampling.

Comparing Transcervical Intrauterine Lidocaine Instillation with Rectal Diclofenac for Pain Relief During Outpatient Hysteroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

There are a number of potential advantages to performing hysteroscopy in an outpatient setting. However, the ideal approach, using local uterine anesthesia or rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, has not been determined. Our objective was to compare the efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine instillation with rectal diclofenac for pain relief during diagnostic hysteroscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial on 70 nulliparous women with primary infertility undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy. Subjects were assigned into one of two groups to receive either 100mg of rectal diclofenac or 5mL of 2% intrauterine lidocaine. The intensity of pain was measured by a numeric rating scale 0-10. Pain scoring was performed during insertion of the hysteroscope, during visualization of the intrauterine cavity, and during extrusion of the hysteroscope.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to the mean pain score during intrauterine visualization (p=0.500). The mean pain score was significantly lower during insertion and extrusion of the hysteroscope in the diclofenac group (p=0.001 and p=0.030, respectively). Nine patients in the lidocaine group and five patients in diclofenac group needed supplementary intravenous propofol injection for sedation (p=0.060).

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal diclofenac appears to be more effective than intrauterine lidocaine in reducing pain during insertion and extrusion of hysteroscope, but there are no significant statistical and clinical differences between the two methods with regard to the mean pain score during intrauterine inspection.

Random-effects meta-analysis: the number of studies matters

This paper investigates the impact of the number of studies on meta-analysis and meta-regression within the random-effects model framework. It is frequently neglected that inference in random-effects models requires a substantial number of studies included in meta-analysis to guarantee reliable conclusions. Several authors warn about the risk of inaccurate results of the traditional DerSimonian and Laird approach especially in the common case of meta-analysis involving a limited number of studies. This paper presents a selection of likelihood and non-likelihood methods for inference in meta-analysis proposed to overcome the limitations of the DerSimonian and Laird procedure, with a focus on the effect of the number of studies. The applicability and the performance of the methods are investigated in terms of Type I error rates and empirical power to detect effects, according to scenarios of practical interest. Simulation studies and applications to real meta-analyses highlight that it is not possible to identify an approach uniformly superior to alternatives. The overall recommendation is to avoid the DerSimonian and Laird method when the number of meta-analysis studies is modest and prefer a more comprehensive procedure that compares alternative inferential approaches. R code for meta-analysis according to all of the inferential methods examined in the paper is provided.

Hysteroscopy: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians

The objective of this study was to provide guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CNGOF), based on the best evidence available, concerning hysteroscopy. Vaginoscopy should be the standard technique for diagnostic hysteroscopy (Grade A) using a miniature (≤3.5mm sheath) (Grade A) rigid hysteroscope (Grade C), using normal saline solution distension medium (Grade C), without any anaesthesia (conscious sedation should not be routinely used), without cervical preparation (Grade B), without vaginal disinfection and without antibiotic prophylaxy (Grade B). Misoprostol (Grade A), vaginal oestrogens (Grade C), or GnRH agonist routine administration is not recommended before operative hysteroscopy. Before performing hysteroscopy, it is important to purge the air out of the system (Grade A). The uterine cavity distention pressure should be maintained below the mean arterial pressure and below 120mm Hg. The maximum fluid deficit of 2000ml is suggested when using normal saline solution and 1000ml is suggested when using hypotonic solution. When uterine perforation is recognized during operative hysteroscopy using monopolar or bipolar loop, the procedure should be stopped and a laparoscopy should be performed in order to eliminate a bowel injury. Diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy is allowed when an endometrial cancer is suspected (Grade B). Implementation of this guideline should decrease the prevalence of complications related to hysteroscopy.

Evidence-based pain management for endometrial biopsies and IUD insertions

Intrauterine device (IUD) insertions and endometrial biopsies (EMB) are common outpatient office procedures performed by advanced practice nurses. There are currently no guidelines for pain management with either IUD insertions or EMB procedures. Combination modalities are the most likely to impact pain perception, but more research is required in this area.

[Prevention of the complications related to hysteroscopy: guidelines for clinical practice]

OBJECTIVE

To provide clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) from the French college of obstetrics and gynecology (CNGOF), based on the best evidence available, concerning the adverse events related to hysteroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review of literature using following Keywords: hysteroscopy; vaginoscopy; infection; perforation; intrauterine adhesions

RESULTS

Vaginoscopy should be the standard technique for outpatient hysteroscopy (grade A) using a miniature (≤ 3.5mm sheath) (grade A) rigid hysteroscope (grade C), using normal saline solution distension medium (grade C), without any anesthesia (conscious sedation should not be routinely used), without cervical preparation (grade B), without vaginal disinfection and without antibiotic prophylaxy (grade B). Misoprostol (grade A), vaginal estrogens (grade C), or GnRH agonist routine administration is not recommended before operative hysteroscopy. Before performing hysteroscopy, it is important to purge the air out of the system (grade A). The uterine cavity distention pressure should be maintained below the mean arterial pressure and below 120 mmHg. The maximum fluid deficit of 2000 mL is suggested when using normal saline solution and 1000 mL is suggested when using hypotonic solution. When uterine perforation is recognized during operative hysteroscopy using monopolar or bipolar loop, the procedure should be stopped and a laparoscopy should be performed in order to eliminate a bowel injury. Diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy is allowed when an endometrial cancer is suspected (grade B).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of this guideline should decrease the prevalence of complications related to office and operative hysteroscopy.

Paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention

BACKGROUND

Cervical dilatation and uterine intervention can be performed under sedation, local or general anaesthesia for obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. Many gynaecologists use paracervical local anaesthesia but its effectiveness is unclear. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness and safety of paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention, versus no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, sedation and systemic analgesia, and general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We reran our search to August 2013. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2013), EMBASE (1980 to August 2013), and reference lists of articles. The original search was performed in January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized or controlled clinical studies involving women who underwent cervical dilatation and uterine intervention for obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. We included studies which compared paracervical anaesthesia with no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, systemic sedation and analgesia, or general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently evaluated the studies, extracted data, and checked and entered data into Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes nine new studies, in total 26 studies with 28 comparisons and involving 2790 participants. No study of local paracervical versus general anaesthesia met our criteria. Ten studies compared local anaesthetic versus placebo. Paracervical local anaesthetic (PLA) reduced pain on cervical dilatation with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.37 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.58) and a relative risk (RR) of severe pain of 0.16 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.74). PLA also reduced abdominal pain during, but not after, uterine intervention (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19); there was no evidence of any effect on postoperative back or shoulder pain. Comparisons against no treatment did not demonstrate any effect of PLA. Five studies compared paracervical block with uterosacral block, intracervical block, or intrauterine topical anaesthesia. Two of these studies showed no significant difference in pain during the procedure. Compared to intrauterine instillation, PLA slightly reduced severe pain (from 8.3 to 7.6 on a 10-point scale), which may be negligible. Six studies compared PLA with sedation. There were no statistically significant differences in pain during or after the procedure, postoperative analgesia requirement, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and the operator's perception of analgesia. We performed risk of bias assessment using six domains and found that more than half of the included studies had low risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that no technique provided reliable pain control in the 26 included studies. Some studies reported that women experienced severe pain (mean scores of 7 to 9 out of 10) during uterine intervention, irrespective of the analgesic technique used. We concluded that the available evidence fails to show whether paracervical block is inferior, equivalent, or superior to alternative analgesic techniques in terms of efficacy and safety for women undergoing cervical dilatation and uterine interventions. We suggest that woman are likely to consider the rates and severity of pain during uterine interventions when performed awake to be unacceptable in the absence of neuraxial blockade, which are unaltered by paracervical block.

Pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Hysteroscopy is increasingly performed in an outpatient setting. The primary reason for failure is pain. There is no consensus upon the routine use of analgesia during hysteroscopy.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of different types of pharmacological interventions for pain relief in patients undergoing hysteroscopy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search of medical literature databases including PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINHAL (to February 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological interventions for pain relief during hysteroscopy were investigated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Results for each study were expressed as a standardised mean difference with 95% confidence interval and combined for meta-analysis with Revman 5 software.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTS were identified involving a total of 3155 participants, with 15 studies included in the meta-analysis.Meta-analysis (nine RCTs, 1296 participants) revealed a significant reduction in the mean pain score for the use of local anaesthetics during the procedure compared with placebo (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.17, I(2) = 82%).Meta-analysis (4 RCTs, 454 participants) demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean pain score for the use of local anaesthetics within 30 minutes after the procedure compared with placebo (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.21, I(2) = 54%).There was no significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of NSAIDS or opioid analgesics compared with placebo during or within 30 minutes after the procedure.There was no significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of local anaesthetics, NSAIDS or opioid analgesics compared with placebo more than 30 minutes after the procedure.There was no significant difference between the number of incidents of failure to complete the procedure due to cervical stenosis between the intervention and control groups (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.59; 6 RCTs, 805 participants).There were significantly fewer incidents of failure to complete the procedure due to pain in the intervention group than in the control group (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69; two studies, 330 participants).Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the intervention and placebo groups with regards to adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of analgesia during and within 30 minutes after outpatient hysteroscopy. 

Local anaesthesia for pain control during outpatient hysteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of different types of local anaesthetic for pain control during outpatient hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

SETTING

Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Women undergoing diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy as outpatients-that is, without general anaesthesia. Study selection criteria Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane library, and reference lists of relevant studies. Two reviewers independently selected trials. Data were abstracted on quality, characteristics, and results.

RESULTS

There were 20 trials (2851 participants). Data from 15 of these were meta-analysed in subgroups defined by type of intervention and study quality. Intracervical (standardised mean difference -0.36, 95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.10, I(2)=0%) and paracervical (-1.28, -2.22 to -0.35, I(2)=97%) injections of local anaesthetic significantly reduced the pain in women undergoing hysteroscopy as outpatients, whereas transcervical (-0.11, -0.31 to 0.10, I(2)=27%) and topical application (-0.32, -0.97 to 0.33, I(2)= 90%) did not. Meta-regression showed that paracervical injection was superior to the other anaesthetic methods (P=0.04), a finding that was supported by the high quality subgroup of studies. Use of local anaesthetic did not have a significant effect on the incidence of vasovagal episodes (P=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Paracervical local anaesthetic injection is the best method of pain control for women undergoing hysteroscopy as outpatients.

Comparison of the efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine, paracervical block and oral etodolac for decreasing pain in endometrial biopsy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of paracervical block, intrauterine lidocaine and oral etodolac in decreasing the pain caused by pipelle endometrial sampling. A secondary goal of this study was to determine the adverse effects and compare possible effects of these methods on pulse and blood pressure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was performed between April 2006 and October 2006 in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Research Hospital. One-hundred twenty patients were randomized into four groups: 1. Group: Paracervical block was performed with 3 ml 2% prilocaine solution. 2. Group: Five ml of 2% lidocaine solution was instilled through the endocervix into the uterine cavity. 3. Group: Subjects received 400 mg oral etodolac tablet 1-1.5 hour before the procedure. 4. Group: No method of anesthesia was used in the control group. Endometrial sampling was performed with pipelle. Severity of pain during the procedure was scored by the subjects according to the "6-point Verbal Rating Scale (VRS)". Blood pressure and pulse rate were measured before, during and 30 minutes after the procedure.

RESULTS

Pain scores in intrauterine lidocaine group (2(nd) group) were found statistically significantly lower than the other three groups (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine lidocaine anesthesia technique decreases pain in endometrial sampling with pipelle more efficiently than paracervical block or oral etodolac. While indication of menorrhagia and endometrial thickness more than 5 mm increased pain scores, intrauterine lidocaine application or paracervical block decreased the scores significantly (p<0.05).

Comparison of lidocaine 1% and normal saline in paracervical anesthesia for decreasing of pain in curettage

The objective of this study was to compare the efficiency oflidocaine with that of plain saline for paracervical pain relief during fractional curettage. The double-blind randomized clinical trial was performed on 150 patients presenting from 2004 to 2005 for curettage. The patients were assigned randomly in two groups to receive lidocaine 1% or normal saline. Number of patients at each group was 75 women. The pain intensity was assessed in four stages: (1) after speculum insertion, (2) during cervical dilatation, (3) during curettage and (4) 30 min after curettage completion. The pain intensity was graded as 0 to 100 according to the Likert Scale. The Mean +/- SD of pain intensity after speculum insertion, during dilatation, during curettage and 30 min after curettage in lidocaine group were 11.33 +/- 9.70, 24.93 +/- 15.36, 37.00 +/- 17.35, 6.47 +/- 6.42 and in normal saline group were 11.73 +/- 9.81, 28.20 +/- 13.19, 49.47 +/- 21.55 and 7.33 +/- 6.22, respectively. There was no significant difference between pain intensity after speculum insertion, during dilatation and during 30 min after curettage but there was a significant difference in pain intensity during curettage between lidocaine 1% group and normal saline group (p < 0.05). Normal saline is as effective as lidocaine 1% in low pain in curettage (distention of nerve capsule) but when increase pain in curettage (third time point), lidocaine 1% is more effective than normal saline. Nerve capsule distention is not the only factor for pain control in paracervical block and analgesic agent is still an important factor.

Paracervical local anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention

BACKGROUND

Cervical dilatation and uterine intervention can be performed under sedation, local or general anaesthesia for obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. Many gynaecologists use paracervical local anaesthesia (PLA) but its effectiveness is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of paracervical anaesthesia for cervical dilatation and uterine intervention when compared with no treatment, placebo, other methods of regional anaesthesia, systemic sedation and analgesia, or general anaesthesia (GA).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2006), EMBASE (1980 to January 2006) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized or controlled clinical studies involving cervical dilatation and uterine intervention for obstetric and gynaecological conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently evaluated studies, extracted data, checked and entered data into Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies involving 1855 participants. No study of PLA versus GA met our criteria; eight studies compared PLA versus placebo. Injection of local anaesthetic was slightly less painful than injection of saline placebo, a reduction of 0.87 points (95% CI 0.14 to 1.60) on a 10-point pain scale. Compared to placebo, PLA reduced abdominal pain during uterine intervention equivalent to two or three points on a 10-point pain scale and reduced the risk of severe pain (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.74). There was no evidence that PLA reduced pain after the uterine intervention and little evidence for any effect on postoperative back or shoulder pain. Pain reduction by PLA was not confirmed in four studies that compared PLA with no treatment. Three studies compared PLA with uterosacral block; intracervical block; and intrauterine topical anaesthesia. Two of these studies showed no significant difference in pain during the procedure. Compared to intrauterine instillation, PLA slightly reduced severe pain (from 8.3 to 7.6, on a 10-point pain scale), which may be negligible. This benefit appeared to be greater for women who required cervical dilatation. Two studies compared PLA with sedation. There were no statistically significant differences in pain during or after the procedure, postoperative analgesia requirement, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and the operator's perception of analgesia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No technique provided reliable pain control in the 17 included studies. Some studies reported that women experienced severe pain (mean scores of 7 to 9 out of 10) during uterine intervention, irrespective of the analgesic technique used. We concluded that the available evidence fails to show whether paracervical block is inferior, equivalent or superior to alternative analgesic techniques, in terms of efficacy and safety, for women undergoing uterine interventions.

Analgesic efficacy of intravenous paracetamol for outpatient fractional curettage: a randomised, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of intravenous (i.v.) paracetamol for decreasing pain associated with fractional curettage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial included 70 women who underwent fractional curettage. Patients were randomly assigned to receive i.v. infusion of either 1000 mg paracetamol (n = 36) or 0.9% normal saline as placebo (n = 34) prior to the procedure. The main outcome measure was the intensity of pain assessed by a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Pain scoring was performed at t(1) = prior to the procedure, t(2) = during the procedure and t(3) = 30 min after the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t-test, chi-squared and Pearson's correlation analysis.

RESULTS

The pain scores at t(2) and t(3) were significantly higher than the score at t(1) in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the pain scores at t(1), t(2) and t(3) among the two groups. Menopausal status had no effect on the pain scores and on the treatment outcome. The pain scores prior to the procedure were significantly higher in women with a history of endometrial curettage when compared with women who have no history.

CONCLUSIONS

Fractional curettage is associated with mild pain. We were unable to detect a significant difference in pain scores in patients undergoing fractional curettage when comparing the use of i.v. paracetamol with placebo. History of prior endometrial curettage seems to be a predictor of the basal pain scores at admission although it does not affect the pain intensity related to the procedure.

Pain experienced during transvaginal ultrasound, saline contrast sonohysterography, hysteroscopy and office sampling: a comparative study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the pain experienced by women during transvaginal ultrasound, saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH), diagnostic hysteroscopy and office sampling.

METHODS

This was a descriptive study of 402 consecutive patients presenting at a 'one-stop' Bleeding Clinic between October 2004 and November 2006. Thirty-nine percent of the patients were postmenopausal. The patients underwent the following examinations transvaginally: first ultrasound with color Doppler, second SCSH, third diagnostic hysteroscopy and fourth endometrial biopsy. After completion of the examinations the patients were asked to complete a questionnaire including a visual analog scale (VAS) about their subjective appreciation of all four examinations. Two-hundred and ninety-three (72%) patients returned the questionnaire.

RESULTS

The median (range) VAS scores for transvaginal ultrasound, SCSH, diagnostic hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling were 1.0 (0-8.1), 2.2 (0-10), 2.7 (0-10) and 5.1 (0-10), respectively (P < 0.0001). The patients' answers to the other questions about the pain experienced, including comparison with other minor procedures such as venous blood sampling, were all concordant with the VAS scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Transvaginal ultrasound was the procedure best accepted, followed by SCSH, hysteroscopy and endometrial sampling. These results suggest that patients would prefer SCSH over hysteroscopy as an initial diagnostic approach in the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding.