Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pain in office hysteroscopy: it is not just a matter of size. Comment on: “Paulo AA, Solheiro MH, Paulo CO. 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. 2015 May 7”

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

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

References

  1. 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 292:987–994. doi:10.1007/s00404-015-3731-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Litta P, Bonora M, Pozzan C, Merlin F, Sacco G, Fracas M, Capobianco G, Dessole S (2003) Carbon dioxide versus normal saline in outpatient hysteroscopy. Hum Reprod 18:2446–2449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Saccardi C, Gizzo S, Patrelli TS, Ancona E, Anis O, Di Gangi S, Vacilotto A, D’Antona D, Nardelli GB (2013) Endometrial surveillance in tamoxifen users: role, timing and accuracy of hysteroscopic investigation: observational longitudinal cohort study. Endocr Relat Cancer 20:455–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cicinelli E (2010) Hysteroscopy without anesthesia: review of recent literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:703–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Raimondo G, Raimondo D, D’Aniello G, Russo C, Ronga A, Gabbanini M, Filippeschi M, Petraglia F, Florio P (2010) A randomized controlled study comparing carbon dioxide versus normal saline as distension media in diagnostic office hysteroscopy: is the distension with carbon dioxide a problem? Fertil Steril 94:2319–2322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Garbin O, Kutnahorsky R, Göllner JL, Vayssiere C (2006) Vaginoscopic versus conventional approaches to outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy: a two-centre randomized prospective study. Hum Reprod 21:2996–3000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. El-Mazny A, Abou-Salem N (2011) A double-blind randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol for cervical priming before outpatient hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 96:962–965

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Floris S, Piras B, Orrù 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 87:147–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kabli N, Tulandi T (2008) A randomized trial of outpatient hysteroscopy with and without intrauterine anesthesia. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:308–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 50:45–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 16:168–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mazzon I, Favilli A, Horvath S, Grasso M, Di Renzo GC, Laurenti E, Bini V, Gerli S (2014) Pain during diagnostic hysteroscopy: what is the role of the cervical canal? A pilot study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 183:169–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mazzon I, Favilli A, Grasso M, Horvath S, Bini V, Di Renzo GC, Gerli S (2014) Pain in diagnostic hysteroscopy: a multivariate analysis after a randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril 102:1398–1403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Perugia, S. Andrea delle Fratte, 06156, Perugia, Italy

    Alessandro Favilli & Sandro Gerli

  2. Arbor Vitae Centre, Clinica Nuova Villa Claudia, 00191, Rome, Italy

    Ivan Mazzon

Authors
  1. Alessandro Favilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivan Mazzon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandro Gerli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandro Gerli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Favilli, A., Mazzon, I. & Gerli, S. Pain in office hysteroscopy: it is not just a matter of size. Comment on: “Paulo AA, Solheiro MH, Paulo CO. 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. 2015 May 7”. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293, 687–688 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3997-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3997-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation