Outpatient hysteroscopy: Factors influencing post-procedure acceptability in patients attending a tertiary referral centre

Outpatient hysteroscopy: Suitable for all? A retrospective cohort study of safety, success and acceptability in Australia

BACKGROUND

In Australia, gynaecologists continue to assess and investigate abnormal uterine bleeding with inpatient hysteroscopy despite evidence validating outpatient hysteroscopy services.

AIM

This retrospective cohort study assessed the safety, success and acceptability of office hysteroscopy in a gynae-oncology rapid-access clinic over six years in Sydney, Australia, and included all women without an age or body mass index (BMI) cut-off using a 'see and treat' concept.

METHODS

A database was created and analysed retrospectively for patients who attended office hysteroscopy service between January 2016 and March 2021 (63 months, 481 eligible). An anonymous modified PAT-32 patient satisfaction questionnaire was also offered to an initial cohort after their procedure to gauge insightful feedback about acceptability.

RESULTS

A total of 92% of patients had successful outpatient hysteroscopic access; 24% of cases required hysteroscopy under general anaesthesia (GA) despite pathology in over 50% of cases; 68% of the total were able to be managed with outpatient hysteroscopy and did not require a follow-up GA hysteroscopy. This paper is also the first of its kind to our knowledge to incorporate patients >65 years, those with a BMI >35 and those with a history of cervical stenosis. This study suggests that age and BMI do not impact the success rate of the procedure.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that outpatient hysteroscopy is an acceptable, safe procedure that is well tolerated by patients. Considering our rapid-access hysteroscopy service allowed 68% of the patient cohort to avoid hysteroscopy under GA, we estimate conservatively ~$63 million per year in Australia could be saved by performing office hysteroscopies.

Uptake of outpatient hysteroscopy in Australia using Medical Benefits Scheme data: Have we fallen behind?

BACKGROUND

Hysteroscopy is a safe procedure which allows both diagnosis and management of cervical and endometrial pathology. Improving Australian women's access to outpatient hysteroscopy would improve cost efficiency and allow women a quicker recovery, negating the need for a general anaesthetic. Increasing the Medicare renumeration for outpatient hysteroscopy could incentivise provision of outpatient hysteroscopy.

AIM

We sought to review the trend and current uptake of outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy in Medicare Benefits Scheme (MBS)-funded clinics within Australia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of Australian MBS data from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2020.

RESULTS

Over the past 27 years, 1 319 909 hysteroscopies have been claimed from Medicare in Australia, with 39 958 (3.1%) claimed as an outpatient diagnostic procedure. Australian outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy MBS item number use peaked in 1994 (5871 cases) representing 18.2% of all hysteroscopies claimed through the MBS that year. Uptake of the outpatient hysteroscopy item number rapidly declined after 1994 and in 2010, it represented 0.8% of all hysteroscopies claimed (426 of 49 618) and has remained below <0.5% from 2010 to 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

The lower Medicare rebate and lack of recognition of the importance of outpatient hysteroscopy has likely been a driving factor in continuing inpatient hysteroscopy. Incentivised government funding has been successfully utilised in the UK to improve outpatient hysteroscopy access. This MBS data suggests that Australia has not progressed in outpatient hysteroscopy access and support a change in the current funding model to assist in supporting the uptake of outpatient access.

Electronic Continuous Pain Measurement vs Verbal Rating Scale in gynaecology: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain measured with a new electronic device - the Continuous Pain Score Meter (CPSM) - and the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) during gynaecological procedures in an outpatient setting, and to correlate these outcomes with baseline anxiety and patient (in)tolerance to the procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective cohort study was undertaken in two centres: a university hospital and a large teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Patients undergoing an outpatient hysteroscopy, colposcopy or ovum pick-up procedure for in-vitro fertilization in one of the two participating hospitals with availability of the CPSM were included. Pain was measured by both the CPSM and the VRS. Patient tolerance to the procedure was reported. Various outcomes of the CPSM were compared with those of the VRS and related to baseline anxiety scores.

RESULTS

Ninety-one of 108 included patients (84 %) used the CPSM correctly during the procedure, and it was possible to analyse the CPSM scores for 87 women (81 %). The CPSM scores were all linearly related to the VRS. The peak pain score on the CPSM (CPSM-PPS) had the strongest correlation with the VRS score for all three procedures. Higher CPSM-PPS was related to patient (in)tolerance to the procedure (p = 0.03-0.002). Anxiety at baseline was not correlated with pain perception, except for VRS during colposcopy (r = 0.39, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients were able to use the CPSM correctly, resulting in detailed information on pain perception for each individual pain stimulus during three outpatient gynaecological procedures. The CPSM-PPS had the strongest correlation with the VRS score and patient (in)tolerance to the procedure.

Introduction of the MyoSureLITE in an established outpatient hysteroscopy clinic

BACKGROUND

Endometrial polyps are a common cause of abnormal uterine bleeding. The MyoSureLITE intrauterine morcellation device is effective at resecting endometrial polyps; however, its use in the outpatient setting requires appraisal.

AIM

To assess the feasibility, utility, acceptability and costs associated with introduction of the MyoSureLITE into an established outpatient hysteroscopy (OPH) clinic.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective clinical database from a tertiary Melbourne hospital was analysed from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2018. Three 12-month time periods were compared: pre-introduction and trial phase, early use, and established use of the MyoSureLITE. Wait times, patient acceptability, second OPH bookings and procedure costs were measured.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and seventy-one women underwent OPH during the study period, with 238 (27.3%) women presenting with endometrial polyp(s). At each timepoint, 78.5, 25 and 6.3% of women required rebooking for a subsequent hysteroscopy for pathology otherwise suitable for MyoSureLITE resection. Introduction of the MyoSureLITE avoided a subsequent procedure for 4, 60 and 69 women respectively for each year of use, with potentially reduced treatment costs for the institution. Median (IQR) wait time for definitive treatment of intrauterine pathology was 56 (24-84) days at time-period 1, decreasing to 0 (0-0) days during time-period 3, (P < 0.001); 87.6% would undergo OPH again.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine use of the MyoSureLITE is effective, feasible, and acceptable to women. Provision of this device in outpatient service allows a 'see-and-treat' model, saving theatre time and treatment costs, facilitating a more direct throughput from presentation to treatment.

Lidocaine-Prilocaine Cream Compared With Injected Lidocaine for Vulvar Biopsy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain control during vulvar biopsy after either application of 5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream or injection of 1% lidocaine.

METHODS

In a single-site randomized trial, patients who needed vulvar biopsy on a non-hair-bearing surface were recruited from a gynecologic oncology clinic to compare lidocaine-prilocaine cream (placed at least 10 minutes before biopsy) with lidocaine injection (at least 1 minute prior). A sample size of 53 participants in each arm (N=106) was planned. Pain was recorded using a 100 mm visual analog scale at three time points: baseline, after application of anesthesia, and after biopsy. The primary outcome was highest pain score recorded. Secondary outcomes were pain score at biopsy, patient experience, and tolerability and acceptability. Linear regression was used to compare the primary outcome between arms while controlling for baseline vulvar pain. A convenience analysis was performed in March 2019.

RESULTS

From October 2018 to March 2019, 38 patients completed informed consent and were randomized. Participants were women with median age of 60 years. Most characteristics between groups were similar. Nineteen were analyzed in the lidocaine-prilocaine group, and 18 were analyzed in the lidocaine injection group. The median highest pain score in the lidocaine-prilocaine group was 20.0 mm vs 56.5 mm in the lidocaine injection group. Controlling for baseline pain, the highest pain score in the lidocaine-prilocaine arm was 25.7 mm lower than in the lidocaine injection arm (95% CI [-45.1 to -6.3]; P<.01). Patients randomized to lidocaine-prilocaine had a significantly better experience than those receiving injected lidocaine (median experience score 2.0 mm vs 17.0 mm; P=.02).

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine-prilocaine cream before vulvar biopsy resulted in a lower maximum pain score and a significantly better patient rating of the biopsy experience when compared with lidocaine injection. Lidocaine-prilocaine cream, alone, is a reasonable option to use for vulvar biopsy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03654417.

Advanced Hysteroscopic Surgery: Quality Assurance in Teaching Hospitals

Advanced hysteroscopic surgery (AHS) is a vitally important technique in the armamentarium for the management of many day-to-day clinical problems, such as menorrhagia, surgical excision of uterine myomata and septa in the management of female infertility, hysteroscopic excision of chronically retained products of conception (placenta accreta), and surgical removal of intramural ectopic pregnancy. In today's climate of accountability, it is necessary that gynecologists take a more active role in assuring the quality of their work. In this article, we discuss the quality assurance system from the point of view of the surgical audit meetings in some of the major teaching hospitals affiliated with the University of Queensland (Brisbane, Queensland, Australia).

Is outpatient hysteroscopy the new gold standard? Results from an 11 year prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

In Australia, gynaecologists continue to investigate women with abnormal bleeding and suspected intrauterine pathology with inpatient hysteroscopy despite some evidence in the literature that that there is no difference in safety and outcome when compared to an outpatient procedure.

AIMS

This prospective study assessed the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient hysteroscopy over 11 years at a tertiary hospital in Australia. Resource savings were then calculated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective database was analysed from March 2003 to January 2014 (130 months, 990 women).

RESULTS

Successful hysteroscopic access was obtained in 94% of cases. Twenty-six percent of patients required a second procedure, including 132 for endometrial polyps and 33 for submucosal fibroids that were not able to be treated in the outpatient setting. On questioning, 88% of women would be happy to have the procedure again. Factors affecting success were pre-procedure pain, menopausal status and previous vaginal delivery. The difference between pain experienced versus pain expected was a major factor in patient acceptability. A vasovagal episode occurred in 5% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient hysteroscopy was demonstrated to be safe, effective and acceptable to women. Provision of an outpatient hysteroscopy service saves theatre time and approximately $1000 per case. Improved techniques and technology will allow progression to a 'see and treat' service, providing further savings. With budget constraints, increasing wait times for major procedures and concerns about trainee surgical experience, an outpatient hysteroscopy service should be considered the 'gold standard' investigation over hysteroscopy in theatre.

Diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important health problem. This paper gives an overview of the diagnosis of HMB. For each woman, a thorough history should be taken as one should ascertain whether there are underlying factors that could cause complaints of HMB. Objectively knowing whether or not the blood loss is excessive could also be very beneficial. The pictorial blood assessment chart score can help with diagnosis. Physical examination starts with standard gynecological examination. Imaging tests are widely used in the work-up for women with HMB. The first step in imaging tests should be the transvaginal ultrasound. Other diagnostic tests should only be performed when indicated.

Assessment of thickened endometrium in tamoxifen therapy

Objective:

Aim of this study was to evaluate role of hysteroscopy in thickened endometrium (>5 mm) associated with tamoxifen therapy.

Materials and Methods:

We performed dilatation and curettage (D&C) and hysteroscopic biopsy to patients for evaluation of thickened endometrium in tamoxifen therapy. One hundred and nine asymptomatic patients with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen 20 mg daily. We performed hysteroscopic biopsy or D&C to patients who have thickened endometrium at transvaginal sonography. We correlate pathology report results of D&C and hysteroscopic biopsy.

Results:

Fifty-nine of 103 patients have thickened endometrium.Thirty-five of 59 patients diagnosed with D&C (19 inactive endometrium, 15 endometrial polyp, 1 endometrial hyperplasia). D&C couldn’t get material 24 of these patients. Hysteroscopic biopsy diagnosed endometrial polyp 11 (45.8%) of these patients.

Conclusion:

We can state that D&C does not seem accurate enough for detection of intrauterin pathologies in thickened endometrium associated with tamoxifen therapy. We therefore believe it is reasonable to perform hysteroscopic biopsy in asymptomatic tamoxifen treated patients who have thickened endometrium.

Pain during diagnostic hysteroscopy: what is the role of the cervical canal? A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a correlation exists between the pain perceived during diagnostic anesthesia-free hysteroscopy and the characteristics of the cervical canal.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective observational pilot study of 255 women undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy. Data analysis included characteristics of the patient and the cervical canal, and the pain experience during the procedure, assessed by visual analog score (VAS). A multiple logistic regression was then carried out in order to exclude confounding factors.

RESULTS

The degree of pain during hysteroscopy was equal to a median VAS score of 2 (range 0-10). Bivariate analysis between patients with VAS>3 and patients with VAS≤3 demonstrated a significant correlation between pain and the presence of synechiae in the cervical canal (P=0.022), the patient's age (P=0.003) and parity (P=0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of cervical synechiae (P=0.0001) [OR=4.99 (95% CI 2.13-11.70)] and parity (P=0.014) [OR=0.42 (95% CI 0.21-0.83)] were significantly correlated with pain. There was no significant correlation with the different angles of the cervical canal.

CONCLUSION

Cervical synechiae appear as a major factor influencing pain during hysteroscopy. While parity acts as a protective factor, the angle of the cervical canal does not seem to play an important role for pain during diagnostic hysteroscopy.

Pain management for tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy involves inserting a foreign body in both fallopian tubes. Over a three-month period, the tubal lumen is occluded by tissue growth stimulated by the insert. Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy has advantages over laparoscopy or mini-laparotomy, including the avoidance of abdominal incisions and the convenience of performing the procedure in an office-based setting. Pain, an important determinant of procedure acceptability, can be a concern when tubal sterilization is performed in the office.

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions to decrease pain during tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

From January to March 2011, we searched the computerized databases of MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL for relevant trials. We searched for current trials via Clinicaltrials.gov. We also examined the reference lists of pertinent articles and wrote to known investigators for information about other published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that evaluated pain management at the time of sterilization by hysteroscopy. The intervention could be compared to another intervention or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Initial data were extracted by one review author. A second review author verified all extracted data. Whenever possible, the analysis was conducted with all women randomized and in the original assigned groups. Data were analyzed using RevMan software. Pain was measured using either a 10-cm or 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). When pain was measured at multiple points during the procedure, the overall pain score was considered the primary treatment effect. If this was not measured, a summation of all pain scores for the procedure was considered to be the primary treatment effect. For continuous variables, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval was computed.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. The total number of participants was 167. Using a 10-cm VAS to measure pain, no significant difference emerged in overall pain for the entire procedure between women who received a paracervical block with lidocaine versus normal saline (mean difference -0.77; 95% CI -2.67 to 1.13). No significant difference in pain score was noted at the time of injection of study solution to the anterior lip of the cervix (mean difference -0.6; 95% CI -1.3 to 0.1), placement of the device in the tubal ostia (mean difference -0.60; 95% CI -1.8 to 0.7), and postprocedure pain (mean difference 0.2; 95% CI -0.8 to 1.2). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8 minutes) and successful bilateral placement (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.19 to 5.28) was not significantly different between groups. During certain portions of the procedure, such as placement of the tenaculum (mean difference -2.03; 95% CI -2.88 to -1.18), administration of the paracervical block (mean difference -1.92; 95% CI -2.84 to -1.00), and passage of the hysteroscope through the external (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.30 to -1.32) and internal os (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.39 to -1.23), use of paracervical block with lidocaine resulted in lower pain scores.Using a 600-point scale calculated by adding 100-point VAS scores from six different portions of the procedure, no significant difference emerged in overall pain between women who received intravenous conscious sedation versus oral analgesia (mean difference -23.00; CI -62.02 to 16.02). Using a 100-point VAS, no significant difference emerged at the time of speculum insertion (mean difference 4.0; 95% CI -4.0 to 12.0), cervical injection of lidocaine (mean difference -1.8; 95% CI -10.0 to 6.4), insertion of the hysteroscope (mean difference -8.7; 95% CI -19.7 to 2.3), placement of the first device (mean difference -4.4; 95% CI -15.8 to 7.0), and removal of the hysteroscope (mean difference 0.9; 95% CI -3.9 to 5.7). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.0 to 1.6 minutes) and time in the recovery area (mean difference 3.6 minutes; 95% CI -11.3 to 18.5 minutes) was not different between groups. However, women who received intravenous conscious sedation had lower pain scores at the time of insertion of the second tubal device compared to women who received oral analgesia (mean difference -12.60; CI -23.98 to -1.22).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available literature is insufficient to determine the appropriate analgesia or anesthesia for sterilization by hysteroscopy. Compared to paracervical block with normal saline, paracervical block with lidocaine reduced pain during some portions of the procedure. Intravenous sedation resulted in lower pain scores during insertion of the second tubal device. However, neither paracervical block with lidocaine nor conscious sedation significantly reduced overall pain scores for sterilization by hysteroscopy.