Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Updates in office hysteroscopy: a practical decalogue to perform a correct procedure

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nowadays, hysteroscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine pathologies as it represents a safe and minimally invasive procedure that allows the visualization of the entire uterine cavity. Numerous technological innovations have occurred over the past few years, contributing to the development and widespread use of this technique. In particular, the new small-diameter hysteroscopes are equipped with an operating channel in which different mechanical instruments can be inserted, and they allow not only to examine the cervical canal and uterine cavity but also to perform biopsies or treat benign diseases in a relatively short time without anesthesia and in an outpatient setting. In this scenario, the operator must be able to perform hysteroscopy in the correct way to make this procedure increasingly safe and painless for the patient. This review aims to describe the ten steps to perform a correct office hysteroscopy, starting from patient counseling to the therapy after the procedure.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Campo R, Santangelo F, Gordts S, Di Cesare C, Van Kerrebroeck H, De Angelis MC, Di Spiezio Sardo A (2018) Outpatient hysteroscopy. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 10(3):115–122

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bettocchi S, Nappi L, Ceci O, Selvaggi L (2003) What does ‘diagnostic hysteroscopy’ mean today? The role of the new techniques. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 15(4):303–308. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.gco.0000084241.09900.c8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vitale SG, Sapia F, Rapisarda AMC, Valenti G, Santangelo F, Rossetti D, Chiofalo B, Sarpietro G, La Rosa VL, Triolo O, Noventa M, Gizzo S, Laganà AS (2017) Hysteroscopic morcellation of submucous myomas: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int 2017:6848250. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6848250

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Salazar CA, Isaacson KB (2018) Office operative hysteroscopy: an update. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25(2):199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Sharma M, Taylor A, Buck L, Magos A (2004) A new device for “no touch” biopsy at “no touch” hysteroscopy: the H pipelle. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(1):157–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.11.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vitale SG (2019) The biopsy snake grasper sec. VITALE: a new tool for office hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.12.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Centini G, Troia L, Lazzeri L, Petraglia F, Luisi S (2016) Modern operative hysteroscopy. Minerva Ginecol 68(2):126–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brauer MM (2017) Plasticity in uterine innervation: state of the art. Curr Protein Pept Sci 18(2):108–119. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389203717666160322145411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vitale SG, Caruso S, Vitagliano A, Vilos G, Di Gregorio LM, Zizolfi B, Tesarik J, Cianci A (2019) The value of virtual reality simulators in hysteroscopy and training capacity: a systematic review. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2019.1625404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Connor M (2015) New technologies and innovations in hysteroscopy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 29(7):951–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Paulo AAS, Solheiro MHR, Paulo COS, Afreixo VMA (2016) 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(1):37–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3836-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Senturk MB, Guraslan H, Babaoglu B, Yasar L, Polat M (2016) The effect of intrauterine lidocaine and rectal indomethacin on pain during office vaginoscopic hysteroscopy: randomized double-blind controlled study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 81(3):280–284. https://doi.org/10.1159/000441787

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fouda UM, Elsetohy KA, Elshaer HS, Hammad BEM, Shaban MM, Youssef MA, Hashem AT, Attia AH (2018) Misoprostol prior to diagnostic office hysteroscopy in the subgroup of patients with no risk factors for cervical stenosis: a randomized double blind placebo-controlled trial. Gynecol Obstet Invest 83(5):455–460. https://doi.org/10.1159/000480234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Keyhan S, Munro MG (2014) Office diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy using local anesthesia only: an analysis of patient reported pain and other procedural outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(5):791–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Abbas AM, Elzargha AM, Ahmed AGM, Mohamed II, Altraigey A, Abdelbadee AY (2019) Oral diclofenac potassium versus hyoscine-N-butyl bromide in reducing pain perception during office hysteroscopy: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 26(4):709–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hassan A, Wahba A, Haggag H (2016) Tramadol versus Celecoxib for reducing pain associated with outpatient hysteroscopy: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Hum Reprod 31(1):60–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Amer-Cuenca JJ, Marín-Buck A, Vitale SG, La Rosa VL, Caruso S, Cianci A, Lisón JF (2019) Non-pharmacological pain control in outpatient hysteroscopies. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2019.1576054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Evangelista A, Oliveira MA, Crispi CP, Lamblet MF, Raymundo TS, Santos LC (2011) Diagnostic hysteroscopy using liquid distention medium: comparison of pain with warmed saline solution vs room-temperature saline solution. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(1):104–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.09.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.07.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00363-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lisón JF, Amer-Cuenca JJ, Piquer-Martí S, Benavent-Caballer V, Biviá-Roig G, Marín-Buck A (2017) Transcutaneous nerve stimulation for pain relief during office hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 129(2):363–370. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mairos J, Di Martino P (2016) Office hysteroscopy. An operative gold standard technique and an important contribution to patient safety. Gynecol Surg 13:111–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0926-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Propst AM, Liberman RF, Harlow BL, Ginsburg ES (2000) Complications of hysteroscopic surgery: predicting patients at risk. Obstet Gynecol 96(4):517–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00958-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Keogh SC, Fry K, Mbugua E, Ayallo M, Quinn H, Otieno G, Ngo TD (2014) Vocal local versus pharmacological treatments for pain management in tubal ligation procedures in rural Kenya: a non-inferiority trial. BMC Womens Health 14:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-14-21

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ogden J, Heinrich M, Potter C, Kent A, Jones S (2009) The impact of viewing a hysteroscopy on a screen on the patient’s experience: a randomised trial. BJOG 116(2):286–292; discussion 292–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02035.x

  26. Laganà AS, Vitale SG, Muscia V, Rossetti P, Buscema M, Triolo O, Rapisarda AM, Giunta L, Palmara V, Granese R, Frangež HB, Romano A (2017) Endometrial preparation with Dienogest before hysteroscopic surgery: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295(3):661–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4244-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology (2009) ACOG practice bulletin no. 104: antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 113(5):1180–1189. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e3181a6d011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nada AM, Elzayat AR, Awad MH, Metwally AA, Taher AM, Ogila AI, Askalany AN, Mohsen RA, Mostafa M, Abdelaal H (2016) Cervical priming by vaginal or oral misoprostol before operative hysteroscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(7):1107–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03046.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nappi C, Di Spiezio Sardo A (2014) State-of-the-art hysteroscopic approaches to pathologies of the genital tract. Endo-Press, Tuttlingen

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.03.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. De Wilde RL (2014) Office hysteroscopy: trophyscope CAMPO compact hysteroscope ((R)): manufacturer: KARL STORZ, Tuttlingen, Germany. J Obstet Gynaecol India 64(4):301–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0593-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Zizolfi B, Lodhi W, Bifulco G, Fernandez L, Spinelli M, Nappi C (2012) See and treat ‘outpatient hysteroscopy with novel fibreoptic’ alphascope. J Obstet Gynaecol 32(3):298–300. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2011.645922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Craciunas L, Sajid MS, Howell R (2013) Carbon dioxide versus normal saline as distension medium for diagnostic hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 100(6):1709–1714 e1701–1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.2003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Umranikar S, Clark TJ, Saridogan E, Miligkos D, Arambage K, Torbe E, Campo R, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Tanos V, Grimbizis G, British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy Guideline Development Group for Management of Fluid Distension Media in Operative H (2016) BSGE/ESGE guideline on management of fluid distension media in operative hysteroscopy. Gynecol Surg 13(4):289–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0983-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Karaman E, Kolusari A, Cetin O, Cim N, Alkis I, Karaman Y, Guler S (2017) What should the optimal intrauterine pressure be during outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy? A randomized comparative study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 43(5):902–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Shirk GJ, Gimpelson RJ (1994) Control of intrauterine fluid pressure during operative hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1(3):229–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1074-3804(05)81015-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bettocchi S, Selvaggi L (1997) A vaginoscopic approach to reduce the pain of office hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4(2):255–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1074-3804(97)80019-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kokanali MK, Cavkaytar S, Guzel AI, Topcu HO, Eroglu E, Aksakal O, Doganay M (2014) Impact of preprocedural anxiety levels on pain perception in patients undergoing office hysteroscopy. J Chin Med Assoc 77(9):477–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2014.07.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bettocchi S, Bramante S, Bifulco G, Spinelli M, Ceci O, Fascilla FD, Di Spiezio Sardo A (2016) Challenging the cervix: strategies to overcome the anatomic impediments to hysteroscopy: analysis of 31,052 office hysteroscopies. Fertil Steril 105(5):e16–e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bifulco G, Piccoli R, Lavitola G, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Spinelli M, Cavallaro A, Nappi C (2010) Endocervicoscopy: a new technique for the diagnostic work-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia allowing a tailored excisional therapy in young fertile women. Fertil Steril 94(7):2726–2731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02503.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bettocchi S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Guida M, Bifulco G, Borriello M, Nappi C (2007) Could office endometrial biopsy be accurate as EBHR for assessing the preoperative tumor grade? Eur J Surg Oncol 33(8):1047–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2007.01.019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Martinelli F, Ditto A, Bogani G, Signorelli M, Chiappa V, Lorusso D, Haeusler E, Raspagliesi F (2017) Accuracy of pre-operative hysteroscopic guided biopsy for predicting final pathology in uterine malignancies. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143(7):1275–1279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-017-2371-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bettocchi S, Di Venere R, Pansini N, Pansini MV, Pellegrino A, Santamato S, Ceci O (2002) Endometrial biopsies using small-diameter hysteroscopes and 5F instruments: how can we obtain enough material for a correct histologic diagnosis? J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 9(3):290–292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. De Franciscis P, Riemma G, Schiattarella A, Cobellis L, Guadagno M, Vitale SG, Mosca L, Cianci A, Colacurci N (2019) Concordance between the hysteroscopic diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and histopathological examination. Diagnostics (Basel) 9(4):142. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9040142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Dakhly DM, Abdel Moety GA, Saber W, Gad Allah SH, Hashem AT, Abdel Salam LO (2016) Accuracy of hysteroscopic endomyometrial biopsy in diagnosis of adenomyosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(3):364–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.11.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Stamatellos I, Stamatopoulos P, Bontis J (2007) The role of hysteroscopy in the current management of the cervical polyps. Arch Gynecol Obstet 276(4):299–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0417-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Litta P, Cosmi E, Saccardi C, Esposito C, Rui R, Ambrosini G (2008) Outpatient operative polypectomy using a 5 mm-hysteroscope without anaesthesia and/or analgesia: advantages and limits. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 139(2):210–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.11.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Deans R, Abbott J (2010) Review of intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(5):555–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.04.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Zizolfi B, Bettocchi S, Exacoustos C, Nocera C, Nazzaro G, da Cunha Vieira M, Nappi C (2016) Accuracy of hysteroscopic metroplasty with the combination of presurgical 3-dimensional ultrasonography and a novel graduated intrauterine palpator: a randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(4):557–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Bettocchi S, Ceci O, Di Venere R, Pansini MV, Pellegrino A, Marello F, Nappi L (2002) Advanced operative office hysteroscopy without anaesthesia: analysis of 501 cases treated with a 5 Fr bipolar electrode. Hum Reprod 17(9):2435–2438. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.9.2435

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Vilos GA (1999) Intrauterine surgery using a new coaxial bipolar electrode in normal saline solution (Versapoint): a pilot study. Fertil Steril 72(4):740–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00329-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Papalampros P, Gambadauro P, Papadopoulos N, Polyzos D, Chapman L, Magos A (2009) The mini-resectoscope: a new instrument for office hysteroscopic surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 88(2):227–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340802516585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Casadio P, Gubbini G, Morra C, Franchini M, Paradisi R, Seracchioli R (2019) Channel-like 360 degrees isthmocele treatment with a 16F mini-resectoscope: a step-by-step technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 26(7):1229–1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.04.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Emanuel MH, Wamsteker K (2005) The intra uterine morcellator: a new hysteroscopic operating technique to remove intrauterine polyps and myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(1):62–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2004.12.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ceci O, Franchini M, Cannone R, Giarre G, Bettocchi S, Fascilla FD, Cicinelli E (2019) Office treatment of large endometrial polyps using truclear 5C: feasibility and acceptability. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 45(3):626–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bigatti G (2010) IBS® Integrated Bigatti Shaver, an alternative approach to operative hysteroscopy. Gynecol Surg 8(2):187–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-010-0634-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Bigatti G, Franchetti S, Rosales M, Baglioni A, Bianchi S (2014) Hysteroscopic myomectomy with the IBS® integrated Bigatti Shaver versus conventional bipolar resectoscope: a retrospective comparative study. Gynecol Surg 11(1):9–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-013-0827-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rovira Pampalona J, Degollada Bastos M, Mancebo Moreno G, Ratia Garcia E, Buron Pust A, Mateu Prunonosa JC, Guerra Garcia A, Carreras Collado R, Bresco Torras P (2015) Outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy: bipolar energy system (Versapoint(R)) versus mechanical energy system (TRUCLEAR System(R))—preliminary results. Gynecol Obstet Invest 80(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000377700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Dealberti D, Riboni F, Cosma S, Pisani C, Montella F, Saitta S, Calagna G, Di Spiezio Sardo A (2016) Feasibility and acceptability of office-based polypectomy with a 16F mini-resectoscope: a multicenter clinical study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(3):418–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.12.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Mazzon I, Bramante S, Bettocchi S, Bifulco G, Guida M, Nappi C (2008) Hysteroscopic myomectomy: a comprehensive review of surgical techniques. Hum Reprod Update 14(2):101–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmm041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Khan Z, Goldberg JM (2018) Hysteroscopic management of Asherman’s syndrome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25(2):218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.09.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Allen RH, Micks E, Edelman A (2013) Pain relief for obstetric and gynecologic ambulatory procedures. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 40(4):625–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2013.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Gallos ID, Krishan P, Shehmar M, Ganesan R, Gupta JK (2013) LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen treatment for endometrial hyperplasia: a long-term comparative cohort study. Hum Reprod 28(11):2966–2971. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det320

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Agostini A, Cravello L, Shojai R, Ronda I, Roger V, Blanc B (2002) Postoperative infection and surgical hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 77(4):766–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(01)03252-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work was not supported by any fund/grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Department of General Surgery and Medical Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Salvatore Giovanni Vitale

  2. Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine, University of Siena, Siena, Italy

    Simone Bruni

  3. Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy

    Benito Chiofalo

  4. Department of Women, Child, and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy

    Gaetano Riemma

  5. Department of Surgery and Specialities, Federal Fluminense University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Ricardo Bassil Lasmar

Authors
  1. Salvatore Giovanni Vitale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simone Bruni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benito Chiofalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gaetano Riemma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ricardo Bassil Lasmar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salvatore Giovanni Vitale.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent is not required for this type of study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vitale, S.G., Bruni, S., Chiofalo, B. et al. Updates in office hysteroscopy: a practical decalogue to perform a correct procedure. Updates Surg 72, 967–976 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00713-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00713-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation