Comparison of Two Hysteroscopy Approaches

November 27, 2006 updated by: Wolfson Medical Center

A New Approach to Office Hysteroscopy Compared With Traditional Hysteroscopy

This randomized clinical trial compares two methods of diagnostic hysteroscopy: vaginoscopic hysteroscopy vs. traditional method. Pain intensity was estimated using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction was evaluated. These endpoints were compared by treatment assignment. Vaginoscopic hysteroscopy was associated with significantly lower VAS scores, indicating reduced experience of pain in this treatment group; however, this was not associated with improved patient satisfaction.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

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.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment

130

Phase

  • Phase 3

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Israel
      • Tel Aviv, Israel
        • Maccabe Health Maintenance Organization

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

Female

Description

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.

-

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Patient satisfaction
Visual analogue scale for pain

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Wolfson Medical Center

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Ron Sagiv, M.D., E. Wolfson Medical Center

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

July 1, 2005

Study Completion

December 1, 2005

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 27, 2006

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 27, 2006

First Posted (Estimate)

April 27, 2006

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

November 28, 2006

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 27, 2006

Last Verified

April 1, 2006

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • EWMCgyn-1

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Menorrhagia

Clinical Trials on vaginoscopic hysteroscopy

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Uganda

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe