Advertisement

In-Office Hysteroscopy

Chapter

Abstract

Thanks to advances in technology, hysteroscopy has moved away from the idea of being a diagnostic endoscopic examination in an outpatient setting towards a global diagnostic and therapeutic management of some intrauterine pathologies in an office environment. Until the mid 90s, the idea of removing polyps was strictly linked to anesthesia and, thus, to an operation room (OR) setting. In 2002, Bettocchi published the first 501 patients treated as an office hysteroscopy (OH) procedure for benign intrauterine lesions without the need of anesthesia nor analgesia with a nearly 80% rate of satisfaction. According to World Health Organization (WHO), one out of ten hospitalized patients suffers any injury or adverse event related to medical management and not due to the disease itself. In 2004, WHO launched the World Alliance for Patient Safety. Regarding OH, it has been considered the ideal technique for the surgical treatment of intrauterine pathology. If requirements are followed, excellent results can be achieved in compliant patients and stand for an important contribution for patient safety. Specifically, success is related to endoscopist skills in hysteroscopy; patient selection; pain control and number; and size and location of lesions.

Keywords

In-office hysteroscopy Diagnostic hysteroscopy Hysteroscopic surgery Patients selection 

References

  1. 1.
    Bettocchi S, Ceci O, Di Venere R, Pansini MV, Pellegrino A, Marello F, Nappi L. Advanced operative office hysteroscopy without anaesthesia: analysis of 501 cases treated with a 5 Fr. bipolar electrode. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(9):2435–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mairos J, Di Martino P. Office Hysteroscopy. An operative gold standard technique and an important contribution to Patient Safety. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:111–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keyhan S, Munro MG. Office diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy using local anesthesia only: an analysis of patient reported pain and other procedural outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(5):791–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Penketh RJ, Bruen EM, White J, Griffiths AN, Patwardhan A, Lindsay P, Hill S, Carolan-Rees G. Feasibility of resectoscopic operative hysteroscopy in a UK outpatient clinic using local anesthetic and traditional reusable equipment, with patient experiences and comparative cost analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(5):830–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cobellis L, Castaldi MA, Giordano V, De Franciscis P, Signoriello G, Colacurci N. Is it possible to predict office hysteroscopy failure? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;18:328–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campo R, Molinas CR, Rombauts L, et al. Prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate factors influencing the success rate of office diagnostic hysteroscopy. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):258–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wortman M, Daggett A, Ball C. Operative hysteroscopy in an office-based surgical setting: review of patient safety and satisfaction in 414 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):56–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campo V, Campo S. Hysteroscopy requirements and complications. Minerva Ginecol. 2007;59(4):451–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spadoto-Dias D, Bueloni-Dias FN, Elias LV, Leite NJ, Modotti WP, Lasmar RB, Dias R. The value of hysteroscopic biopsy in the diagnosis of endometrial polyps. Womens Health (Lond). 2016;12(4):412–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joyce J, Langsjoen J, Sharadin C, Kuehl TJ, Larsen WI. Inappropriate use of antibiotics in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2017;30(1):30–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Eyk N, van Schalkwyk J, Infectious Diseases Committee. Antibiotic prophylaxis in gynaecologic procedures. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34(4):382–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elessawy M, Skrzipczyk M, Eckmann-Scholz C, Maass N, Mettler L, Guenther V, van Mackelenbergh M, Bauerschlag DO, Alkatout I. Integration and validation of hysteroscopy simulation in the surgical training curriculum. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(1):84–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erian MM, McLaren GR, Erian AM. Advanced hysteroscopic surgery training. JSLS. 2014;18(4):e2014.00396.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Janse JA, Driessen SR, Veersema S, Broekmans FJ, Jansen FW, Schreuder HW. Training of hysteroscopic skills in residency program: the Dutch experience. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(2):345–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Closon F, Tulandi T. Future research and developments in hysteroscopy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;29(7):994–1000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tang J, Kapp N, Dragoman M, de Souza JP. WHO recommendations for misoprostol use for obstetric and gynecologic indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;121(2):186–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghosh A, Chaudhuri P. Misoprostol for cervical ripening prior to gynecological transcervical procedures. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(5):967–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kovachev E, Ivanov S, Hinev A, Kosev P, Tsonev A, Abbud A. Clinical application of the natural cervical dilatators (Laminaria) in obstetrics and gynecology. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2011;50(2):36–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Christianson MS, Barker MA, Lindheim SR. Overcoming the challenging cervix: techniques to access the uterine cavity. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2008;12(1):24–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karakus S, Akkar OB, Yildiz C, Yenicesu GI, Cetin M, Cetin A. Comparison of effectiveness of Laminaria versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical preparation before operative hysteroscopy in women of reproductive age: a prospective randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(1):46–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Al-Fozan H, Firwana B, Al Kadri H, Hassan S, Tulandi T. Preoperative ripening of the cervix before operative hysteroscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(4):CD005998. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005998.pub2.
  22. 22.
    Salari BW, Bhagavath B, Galloway ML, Findley AD, Yaklic JL, Lindheim SR. Hysteroscopic morcellator to overcome cervical stenosis. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(6):e12–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Medvedev MV. Dramatic progress in hysteroscopy. www.hysteroscopy.info. 2017;3(1). Ahead of publication.
  24. 24.
    Nappi L, Sorrentino F, Angioni S, Pontis A, Litta P, Greco P. Feasibility of hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy using a new dual wavelengths laser system (DWLS): preliminary results of a pilot study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(1):3–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cooper NA, Middleton L, Smith P, Denny E, Stobert L, Daniels J, Clark TJ, OPT trial collaborative group. A patient-preference cohort study of office versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13(4):313–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alanbay I, Karasahin KE, Ozturk M, Yenen MC. Hysteroscopic huge polypectomy with Randall forceps under visual guidance of office hysteroscopy; an alternative method for operative hysteroscopy or mechanical removal techniques. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(6S):S142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clark TJ, Middleton LJ, Cooper NA, Diwakar L, Denny E, Smith P, Gennard L, Stobert L, Roberts TE, Cheed V, Bingham T, Jowett S, Brettell E, Connor M, Jones SE, Daniels JP. A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(61):1–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dealberti D, Riboni F, Cosma S, Pisani C, Montella F, Saitta S, Calagna G, Di Spiezio Sardo A. Feasibility and acceptability of office-based polypectomy with a 16F mini-resectoscope: a multicenter clinical study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(3):418–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garuti G, Centinaio G, Luerti M. Outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in postmenopausal women: a comparison between mechanical and electrosurgical resection. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):595–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pampalona JR, Bastos MD, Moreno GM, Pust AB, Montesdeoca GE, Guerra Garcia A, Pruñonosa JC, Collado RC, Torras PB. A comparison of hysteroscopic mechanical tissue removal with bipolar electrical resection for the management of endometrial polyps in an ambulatory care setting: preliminary results. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(3):439–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rovira Pampalona J, Degollada Bastos M, Mancebo Moreno G, Ratia Garcia E, Buron Pust A, Mateu Pruñonosa JC, Guerra Garcia A, Carreras Collado R, Bresco Torras P. Outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy: bipolar energy system (Versapoint®) versus mechanical energy system (TRUCLEAR System®)—preliminary results. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2015;80(1):3–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Noventa M, Ancona E, Quaranta M, Vitagliano A, Cosmi E, D'Antona D, Gizzo S. Intrauterine morcellator devices: the icon of hysteroscopic future or merely a marketing image? A systematic review regarding safety, efficacy, advantages, and contraindications. Reprod Sci. 2015;22(10):1289–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lara-Domínguez MD, Arjona-Berral JE, Dios-Palomares R, Castelo-Branco C. Outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy: bipolar energy system (Versapoint®) versus diode laser—randomized clinical trial. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32(3):196–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Haimovich S, López-Yarto M, Urresta Ávila J, Saavedra Tascón A, Hernández JL, Carreras Collado R. Office hysteroscopic laser enucleation of submucous myomas without mass extraction: a case series study. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:905204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nappi L, Pontis A, Sorrentino F, Greco P, Angioni S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate uterus with diode laser: a pilot study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;206:32–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nappi L, Sorrentino F, Angioni S, Pontis A, Greco P. The use of laser in hysteroscopic surgery. Minerva Ginecol. 2016;68(6):722–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rioux JE. The intrauterine device today. J SOGC. 1993;15(8):921–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Coleman M, McCowan L, Farquhar C. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device: a wider role than contraception. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;37(2):195–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive MedicineHospital Universitari Dexeus, Grupo QuirónSaludBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations