World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Vaginoscopic vs Traditional Hysteroscopy

Neena Gupta, Uruj Jahan, Anuradha Yadav, Rashmi Kumari

Keywords : Hysteroscopy, Outpatient, Pain score, Procedure time, Traditional, Vaginoscopic

Citation Information : Gupta N, Jahan U, Yadav A, Kumari R. Comparative Evaluation of Vaginoscopic vs Traditional Hysteroscopy. World J Lap Surg 2021; 14 (2):98-102.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1455

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 19-08-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: A randomized case–control study was performed to compare the traditional using a speculum vs vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in terms of pain score and procedure time. Materials and methods: A total of 100 patients aged 20 to 60 years old, including nulliparous, multiparous, and postmenopausal, were randomized in two groups: group A undergoing traditional hysteroscopy with speculum and vulselum (50 patients) and group B undergoing “no-touch” vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. Results: Vaginoscopy was significantly more successful than the traditional hysteroscopy. The total pain was calculated for each group, it was significantly lower in the vaginoscopic technique (p = 0.026). The mean time was 5.71 for traditional hysteroscopy and 4.44 for vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. The time taken to perform hysteroscopy was significantly shorter with vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. There was no difference in failure rates. Conclusion: The vaginoscopic approach is better tolerated, quicker to perform, less painful, and therefore, more successful than the traditional hysteroscopy using the speculum. It should be preferred in an outpatient setting.


PDF Share
  1. Clark TJ, Voit D, Gupta JK, et al. Accuracy of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and hyperplasia: a sytematic quantitative review. JAMA 2002;288(13):1610–1621. DOI: 10.1001/jama.288.13.1610.
  2. Busquets M, Lemus M. Factibilidad de histeroscopia panorámica con CO2. Experiencia clínica: 923 casos [Practicability of panoramic hysteroscopy with CO2. Clinical experience: 923 cases]. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol. 1993;58(2):113-8. Spanish. PMID: 8209037.
  3. Clark TJ, Gupta JK. Handbook of outpatient hysteroscope. A complete guide to diagnosis and therapy. 1st ed. London: Hodder Education; 2005.
  4. Mukhopadhyay SR, Ashis K. Correlation between diagnostic hysteroscopy and its histopathological examination in the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding. Indian J Prev Soc Med 2014;45(1–2): 62–65.
  5. Lotha L, Borah A. Clinicopathological evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding in perimenopausal women. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2016;5(9):3072–3074. DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20162987.
  6. Guida M, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Acunzo G, et al. Vaginoscopic versus traditional office hysteroscopy: a randomised controlled study. Hum Reprod 2006;21(12):3253–3257. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del298. PMID: 16861744.
  7. Campo R, Molinas CR, Rombauts L, et al. Prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate factors influencing the success rate of office diagnostic hysteroscopy. Human Reprod 2005;20(1):258–263. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh559.
  8. Cooper N, Smith P, Khan K, et al. Vaginoscopic approach to outpatient hysteroscopy: a systematic review of the effect on pain. BJOG 2010;117(5):532–539. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02503.x.
  9. Bettocchi S, Nappi L, Ceci O, et al. What does “diagnostic hysteroscopy” mean today? The role of new techniques. Curr Opin Obstret Gynecol 2003;15(4):303–308. DOI: 10.1097/01.gco.0000084241.09900.c8.
  10. Bettocchi S, Nappi L, Ceci O, et al. Office hysteroscopy. Obstret Gynecol Clin North Am 2004;31(3):641–654. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2004.05.007.
  11. Sagiv R, Sadan O, Boaz M, et al. A new approach to office hysteroscopy compared with the traditional hysteroscopy: a randomised controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108(2):387–392. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000227750.93984.06.
  12. Nagele F, O'Connor H, Davies A, et al. 2500 outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopies. Obstret Gynecol 1996;88(1):87-92. DOI: 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00108-1.
  13. Cicinelli E. Hysteroscopy without anaesthesia: review of recent literature. J Minim Invasive Gynaecol 2010;17(6):703–708. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.07.003.
  14. De Angelis C, Santoro G, Elisa M, et al. Office hysteroscopy and compliance: mini hysteroscopy versus traditional hysteroscopy in a randomised trial. Hum Reprod 2003;18(11):2441–2445. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deg463.
  15. Pellicano M, Guida M, Zullo F, et al. Carbon dioxide versus normal saline as a uterine distention medium for diagnostic vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in infertile patients: a prospective, randomised, multicenter study. Fertil Steril 2003;79(2):418–421. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)04681-2.
  16. Sharma M, Taylor A, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al. Outpatient hysteroscopy: traditional versus the “no touch “technique. BJOG 2005;112(7):963–967. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00425.x.
  17. De Silva PM, Carnegy A, Smith PP, et al. Vaginoscopy for office hysteroscopy: a systematic review and metanalysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;252:278–285. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.06.045. PMID: 32645643.
  18. [Diagnostic possibilities of the flexible hysteroscopy in irregular uterine bleeding]. Zlatkov V, Bŭrzakov G, Cholakova A, Miloshov V, Radeva V, Velinov E, Mikhova A Akusherstvo i Ginekologiia, 01 Jan 2006, 45(1):36-40.
  19. Smith PP, Kolhe S, O'Connor S, et al. Vaginoscopy against standard treatment: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2019;126(7):891–899. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15665. PMID: 30801889.
  20. Tahir MM, Bigrigg MA, Browning JJ, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing transvaginal ultrasound, outpatient hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy with inpatient hysteroscopy and curettage. Br J Obstret Gynecol 1999;106(12):1259–1264. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08179.x.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.