Outcome comparison between vaginoscopy and standard hysteroscopy: A retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Background: Hysteroscopy is a traditional diagnostic method, whereas vaginoscopy is a more recent but proven approach. However, most physicians are unfamiliar with vaginoscopy. We aimed to compare the feasibility and tolerability between the two techniques to increase clinical awareness. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 100 patients who underwent office hysteroscopy with either the standard approach or the vaginoscopic approach between May and July 2019. While the standard hysteroscopy group underwent speculum insertion and the cervix was grasped with forceps, the vaginoscopy group did not. The primary outcome was a successfully completed examination. Related outcomes were the pain score, complications, and absence of signs of infection at 1 week after completing the examination. Results: The success rates of vaginoscopy and standard hysteroscopy were comparable (95.5% vs 96.3%). The median time to complete a vaginoscopy (135 seconds) was significantly shorter than to complete a standard hysteroscopy (190 seconds, p = 0.02). The median pain score was 3 for vaginoscopy, which was significantly lower than that for standard hysteroscopy (5; p = 0.01). There were no differences in the surgical complication rate between vaginoscopy (n = 4) and standard hysteroscopy (n = 3) (relative risk = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-6.00). Conclusion: Vaginoscopy required a shorter time for the completion of the examination and involved lesser pain than the standard hysteroscopy. The success rates were comparable between the two techniques. Therefore, vaginoscopy is a good option for office hysteroscopic examinations.

Correlation Analysis of Serum Pepsinogen, Interleukin, and TNF-α with Hp Infection in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Parallel Controlled Clinical Study

“…Interleukin-18 (IL-18), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and tumor necrosis factor- α (TNF- α ) are highly sensitive markers of inflammatory factors [ 6 ]. Studies have confirmed that these inflammatory factors can induce and aggravate inflammatory responses, and IL-18 is involved in the occurrence and development of various malignant tumors including gastric cancer through various mechanisms [ 7 ]. After the inflammatory reaction, due to the continuous increase of free radicals and the generation of superoxide, the cells undergo peroxidative damage, resulting in long-term cellular tumors and gastric cancer [ 8 ].…”

Effect of Vaginoscopy versus Conventional Hysteroscopy on Pain, Complications, and Patient Satisfaction in Patients with Endometrial Polyps

“…These factors have limited the widespread use of hysteroscopy in outpatient clinics [ 6 ]. With the use of vaginoscopy, outpatient hysteroscopy techniques have been further developed and improved [ 7 ]. In this study, the clinical data of patients examined by conventional hysteroscopy and vaginoscopy were analysed and compared to assess the advantages of vaginoscopy in the clinical setting, and the results are reported below.…”

Does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection?

“…The probability of complications after hysteroscopy is 1-2.7% ( 9 , 10 , 11 ) . Although some studies have shown that there are fewer surgical complications in vaginoscopy than in standard hysteroscopy ( 7 ) , it has been shown that there is no statistical difference in terms of surgical complications in others ( 12 ) . Serious complications, such as uterine perforation or bleeding are rare in the office setting, but vasovagal reactions occur in 2.3 and 9.0% ( 7 , 13 ) .…”

“…Tien et al. ( 12 ) disinfected the vagina and cervix with betadine-soaked cotton swabs before vaginoscopy and found that there was no significant difference in the genital tract infection rate between the vaginoscopy and standard hysteroscopy groups.…”