Comparison of Two Hysteroscopy Approaches

OBJECTIVE: To compare the vaginoscopic approach of diagnostic hysteroscopy without anesthesia with the traditional diagnostic hysteroscopy after intracervical injection of Mepivacaine Hydrochloride 3%.

METHODS: A total of 130 women undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy were included in the study and were randomized, using a computer-generated randomization list, into two groups with a ratio of 2:1. Eighty three women underwent vaginoscopy without speculum, tenaculum or anesthesia. Forty seven women received intracervical anesthesia with 10 ml of 3% mepivacaine hydrochloride solution injected at two sites (3:00 and 9:00 positions) and underwent traditional hysteroscopy using a speculum and tenaculum. Hysteroscopy was performed using a rigid 3.7 mm hysteroscope in a medium of 0.9% saline, and the image was transmitted to a screen visible to the patient. A Visual Scale Analogue (VAS) consisting of a 10 cm line was used to assess the intensity of pain experienced during and after the procedure. Overall patient satisfaction was assessed during, immediately after, 15 minutes later, and three days post hysteroscopy.

RESULTS: The mean pain score was significantly lower in the vaginoscopy group (3.8±2.7 vs 5.34±3.23, p=0.01). Patient satisfaction rate was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION: Patients reported significantly less pain with the vaginoscopic approach to diagnostic hysteroscopy even without anesthesia compared to patients undergoing the traditional procedure with anesthesia. This new approach should therefore be considered as a replacement for the traditional hysteroscopic technique.

Inclusion criteria

adult female, referred for outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy, subscriber to Maccabe health maintenance organization -

Exclusion criteria

heavy vaginal bleeding; severe cervical stenosis; patients refusing the examination on an outpatient basis.

-