Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What proportion of women refers moderate to severe pain during office hysteroscopy with a mini-hysteroscope? A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Mini-hysteroscopy is believed to be pain-free or in the least bearable. Office procedures are therefore usually performed without analgesia or anesthesia. Is it indeed as tolerable as papers and authors suggest?

Objectives

To estimate what proportion of women reports moderate to severe discomfort during examination using the smaller diameter scopes.

Search strategy

Online sources were search with key words “hysteroscopy” and “pain” from 2000 to December 2014. Thirty-five articles were retrieved for detailed analysis.

Selection criteria

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and well-designed prospective trials (PT) studying pain as main outcome, in office mini-hysteroscopy in at least one arm. Studies or arms within a study where conscientious sedation, anesthesia, or non-steroidal drugs were used were excluded. Chosen data collected was the number of women referring moderate to severe pain compared to total women with intervention in the arm or study. Authors were contacted to try to retrieve unpublished data for analysis.

Data collection and analysis

We performed a meta-analysis from eight studies (six RCT and two PT) comparing pain reported as moderate or severe to total women in mini-hysteroscopy.

Main results

A meta-analysis estimated the pooled prevalence of pain (>3–10 on 10 cm visual analog scale) for all studies and by two subgroups: (1) RCT and (2) PT. Due to significant heterogeneity between studies, we used the random effects model. Results revealed a high prevalence of pain in outpatient mini-hysteroscopy.

Conclusions

Office mini-hysteroscopy is painful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guida M, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Acunzo G, Sparice S, Bramante S, Piccoli R, Bifulco G, Cirillo D, Pellicano M, Nappi C (2006) Vaginoscopic versus traditional office hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod 21(12):3253–3257. doi:10.1093/humrep/del298

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Siristatidis C, Chrelias C (2011) Feasibility of office hysteroscopy through the “see and treat technique” in private practice: a prospective observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283(4):819–823. doi:10.1007/s00404-010-1431-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dealberti D, Riboni F, Prigione S, Pisani C, Rovetta E, Montella F, Garuti G (2013) New mini-resectoscope: analysis of preliminary quality results in outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288(2):349–353. doi:10.1007/s00404-013-2754-7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Yang R, Du X, Wang Y, Song X, Yang Y, Qiao J (2014) The hysteroscopy and histological diagnosis and treatment value of chronic endometritis in recurrent implantation failure patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289(6):1363–1369. doi:10.1007/s00404-013-3131-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Siristatidis C, Chrelias C, Salamalekis G, Kassanos D (2010) Office hysteroscopy: current trends and potential applications: a critical review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 282(4):383–388. doi:10.1007/s00404-010-1437-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gkrozou F, Dimakopoulos G, Vrekoussis T, Lavasidis L, Koutlas A, Navrozoglou I, Stefos T, Paschopoulos M (2015) Hysteroscopy in women with abnormal uterine bleeding: a meta-analysis on four major endometrial pathologies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291(6):1347–1354. doi:10.1007/s00404-014-3585-x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. De Angelis C, Santoro G, Re ME, Nofroni I (2003) Office hysteroscopy and compliance: mini-hysteroscopy versus traditional hysteroscopy in a randomized trial. Hum Reprod 18(11):2441–2445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sagiv R, Sadan O, Boaz M, Dishi M, Schechter E, Golan A (2006) A new approach to office hysteroscopy compared with traditional hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 108(2):387–392. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000227750.93984.06

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Diniz DB, Depes Dde B, Pereira AM, David SD, Lippi UG, Baracat FF, Lopes RG (2010) Pain evaluation in office hysteroscopy: comparison of two techniques. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 32(1):26–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ekin M, Yasar L, Akgöl S (2009) Comparison of Vaginoscopic no touch method with the traditional method of outpatient hysteroscopy. Med J Bakırköy 5(2):63–66

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cooper NA, Smith P, Khan KS, Clark TJ (2010) Vaginoscopic approach to outpatient hysteroscopy: a systematic review of the effect on pain. BJOG 117(5):532–539. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02503.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tanha FD, Salimi S, Ghajarzadeh M (2013) Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening before hysteroscopy: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287(5):937–940. doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2652-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Romani F, Guido M, Morciano A, Martinez D, Gaglione R, Lanzone A, Selvaggi L (2013) The use of different size-hysteroscope in office hysteroscopy: our experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288(6):1355–1359. doi:10.1007/s00404-013-2932-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghosh A, Chaudhuri P (2013) Misoprostol for cervical ripening prior to gynecological transcervical procedures. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287(5):967–973. doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2648-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Baxter AJ, Beck B, Phillips K (2002) A randomized prospective trial of rigid and flexible hysteroscopy in an outpatient setting. Gynaecol Endosc 11(6):357–364. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2508.2002.00562.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Unfried G, Wieser F, Albrecht A, Kaider A, Nagele F (2001) Flexible versus rigid endoscopes for outpatient hysteroscopy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 16(1):168–171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Paulo AA, Solheiro MH, Paulo CO (2015) Is pain better tolerated with mini-hysteroscopy than with conventional device? A systematic review and meta-analysis: hysteroscopy scope size and pain. Arch Gynecol Obstet. doi:10.1007/s00404-015-3731-0

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cooper NA, Smith P, Khan KS, Clark TJ (2011) A systematic review of the effect of the distension medium on pain during outpatient hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 95(1):264–271. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. De Angelis C, Perrone G, Santoro G, Nofroni I, Zichella L (2003) Suppression of pelvic pain during hysteroscopy with a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device. Fertil Steril 79(6):1422–1427. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(03)00363-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Angioli R, De Cicco Nardone C, Plotti F, Cafa EV, Dugo N, Damiani P, Ricciardi R, Linciano F, Terranova C (2014) Use of music to reduce anxiety during office hysteroscopy: prospective randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(3):454–459. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.07.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Campo R, Molinas CR, Rombauts L, Mestdagh G, Lauwers M, Braekmans P, Brosens I, Van Belle Y, Gordts S (2005) Prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate factors influencing the success rate of office diagnostic hysteroscopy. Hum Reprod 20(1):258–263. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cooper NA, Smith P, Khan KS, Clark TJ (2011) Does cervical preparation before outpatient hysteroscopy reduce women’s pain experience? A systematic review. BJOG 118(11):1292–1301. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03046.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cooper NA, Khan KS, Clark TJ (2010) Local anaesthesia for pain control during outpatient hysteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 340:c1130. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1130

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kabli N, Tulandi T (2008) A randomized trial of outpatient hysteroscopy with and without intrauterine anesthesia. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):308–310. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2008.01.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Soriano D, Ajaj S, Chuong T, Deval B, Fauconnier A, Darai E (2000) Lidocaine spray and outpatient hysteroscopy: randomized placebo-controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 96(5 Pt 1):661–664

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Floris S, Piras B, Orru M, Silvetti E, Tusconi A, Melis F, Tuveri M, Piga M, Paoletti AM, Melis GB (2007) Efficacy of intravenous tramadol treatment for reducing pain during office diagnostic hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 87(1):147–151. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.072

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lin YH, Hwang JL, Huang LW, Chen HJ (2005) Use of sublingual buprenorphine for pain relief in office hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(4):347–350. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2005.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmad G, O’Flynn H, Attarbashi S, Duffy JM, Watson A (2010) Pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (11):CD007710. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007710.pub2

  29. de Carvalho Schettini JA, Ramos de Amorim MM, Ribeiro Costa AA, Albuquerque Neto LC (2007) Pain evaluation in outpatients undergoing diagnostic anesthesia-free hysteroscopy in a teaching hospital: a cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6):729–735. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2007.05.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cicinelli E, Rossi AC, Marinaccio M, Matteo M, Saliani N, Tinelli R (2007) Predictive factors for pain experienced at office fluid minihysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(4):485–488. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2007.03.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M (2011) Measures of adult pain: visual analog scale for pain (VAS Pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS Pain), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), chronic pain grade scale (CPGS), short form-36 bodily pain scale (SF-36 BPS), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res 63(Suppl 11):S240–S252. doi:10.1002/acr.20543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Williamson A, Hoggart B (2005) Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs 14(7):798–804. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, Rosseland LA, Romundstad L, Hals EK, Kvarstein G, Stubhaug A (2008) Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth 101(1):17–24. doi:10.1093/bja/aen103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Burckhardt CS, Jones KD (2003) Adult measures of pain: the McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), rheumatoid arthritis pain Scale (RAPS), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), verbal descriptive scale (VDS), visual analog scale (VAS), and West Haven-Yale multidisciplinary pain inventory (WHYMPI). Arthritis Rheum 49(S5):S96–S104. doi:10.1002/art.11440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA (1978) Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 37(4):378–381

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Toolkit SWRWC (2010) WHO Pain Ladder with Pain Management Guidelines.1

  37. Program VIHAEoL (2008) Principles of pain assessment.9

  38. Jensen MP, Chen C, Brugger AM (2003) Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings and change scores: a reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain. J Pain 4(7):407–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sikandar S, Dickenson AH (2012) Visceral pain: the ins and outs, the ups and downs. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 6(1):17–26. doi:10.1097/SPC.0b013e32834f6ec9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Cervero F (2009) Visceral versus somatic pain: similarities and differences. Dig Dis 27(Suppl 1):3–10. doi:10.1159/000268115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Agostini A, Bretelle F, Ronda I, Roger V, Cravello L, Blanc B (2004) Risk of vasovagal syndrome during outpatient hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(2):245–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Vilos GA, Abu-Rafea B (2005) New developments in ambulatory hysteroscopic surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 19(5):727–742. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2005.06.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cicinelli E, Schonauer LM, Barba B, Tartagni M, Luisi D, Di Naro E (2003) Tolerability and cardiovascular complications of outpatient diagnostic minihysteroscopy compared with conventional hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10(3):399–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kassem GA, El-Brombly W, El Huseiny AM (2005) Outpatient minihysteroscopy and conventional hysteroscopy: a comparative study. Middle East Fertil Soc J 10(3):231–237

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rullo S, Sorrenti G, Marziali M, Ermini B, Sesti F, Piccione E (2005) Office hysteroscopy: comparison of 2.7- and 4-mm hysteroscopes for acceptability, feasibility and diagnostic accuracy. J Reprod Med 50(1):45–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Giorda G, Scarabelli C, Franceschi S, Campagnutta E (2000) Feasibility and pain control in outpatient hysteroscopy in postmenopausal women: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 79(7):593–597

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Fonseca MD, Sessa FV, Resende JA Jr, Guerra CG, Andrade CM Jr, Crispi CP (2014) Identifying Predictors of Unacceptable Pain at Office Hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.12.118

    Google Scholar 

  48. Torok P, Major T (2013) Evaluating the level of pain during office hysteroscopy according to menopausal status, parity, and size of instrument. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287(5):985–988. doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2667-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. De Placido G, Clarizia R, Cadente C, Castaldo G, Romano C, Mollo A, Alviggi C, Conforti S (2007) Compliance and diagnostic efficacy of mini-hysteroscopy versus traditional hysteroscopy in infertility investigation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 135(1):83–87. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.02.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pluchino N, Ninni F, Angioni S, Artini P, Araujo VG, Massimetti G, Genazzani AR, Cela V (2010) Office vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in infertile women: effects of gynecologist experience, instrument size, and distention medium on patient discomfort. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(3):344–350. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.01.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bettocchi S, Selvaggi L (1997) A vaginoscopic approach to reduce the pain of office hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4(2):255–258

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. De Iaco P, Marabini A, Stefanetti M, Del Vecchio C, Bovicelli L (2000) Acceptability and pain of outpatient hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7(1):71–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Raimondo G (2010) A randomized controlled study comparing carbon dioxide versus normal saline as distention media in diagnostic office hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 94(6):2319–2322. doi:10.1016/j.fertnsert.2009.11.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Zullo F, Pellicano M, Stigliano CM, Di Carlo C, Fabrizio A, Nappi C (1999) Topical anesthesia for office hysteroscopy. A prospective, randomized study comparing two modalities. The. J Reprod Med 44(10):865–869

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Cicinelli E (2010) Hysteroscopy without anesthesia: review of recent literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(6):703–708. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.07.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Bettocchi S, Spinelli M, Guida M, Nappi L, Angioni S, Sosa Fernandez LM, Nappi C (2010) Review of new office-based hysteroscopic procedures 2003-2009. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):436–448. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.03.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Angioni S, Loddo A, Milano F, Piras B, Minerba L, Melis GB (2008) Detection of benign intracavitary lesions in postmenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding: a prospective comparative study on outpatient hysteroscopy and blind biopsy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(1):87–91. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2007.10.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, Fainsinger R, Aass N, Kaasa S (2011) Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 44(6):1073–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Vinagre C, Mairos J, Di Martino P (2013) Hysteroscopic anesthesia: a new method of anesthesia in ambulatory hysteroscopy. Acta Obstet Ginecol Port 7(4):3

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Centre Tondela-Viseu, Avda. Rei D.Duarte, 3504-509, Viseu, Portugal

    Antonio Augusto Santos Paulo

  2. Health Sciences Department, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Antonio Augusto Santos Paulo

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Centre Tondela-Viseu, Viseu, Portugal

    Maria Helena Ruivo Solheiro

  4. Farmacia Avenida, Mangualde, Portugal

    Carolina Oliveira Santos Paulo

  5. Department of Mathematics and Institute of Biomedicine, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Vera Mónica Almeida Afreixo

Authors
  1. Antonio Augusto Santos Paulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Helena Ruivo Solheiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carolina Oliveira Santos Paulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vera Mónica Almeida Afreixo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Augusto Santos Paulo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest with any institution private or public.

Ethical standards

No funding and no ethical approval was considered necessary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paulo, A.A.S., Solheiro, M.H.R., Paulo, C.O.S. et al. What proportion of women refers moderate to severe pain during office hysteroscopy with a mini-hysteroscope? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293, 37–46 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3836-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3836-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation