No abstract

Background and Objectives: Hysteroscopy is a reliable technique which is highly useful for the evaluation and management of intrauterine pathology. Recently, the widespread nature of in-office procedures without the need for anesthesia has been requesting validation of practical approach in order to reduce procedure-related pain. In this regard, we performed a comprehensive review of literature regarding pain management in office hysteroscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register), Global Health, Health Technology Assessment Database and Web of Science, other research registers (for example Clinical Trials database) were searched. We searched for all original articles regarding pain relief strategy during office hysteroscopy, without date restriction. Results have been collected and recommendations have been summarized according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) tool. Moreover, the strength of each recommendation was scored following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) system, in order to present the best available evidence. Results: Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for pain management are feasible and can be applied in office setting for hysteroscopic procedures. The selection of strategy should be modulated according to the characteristics of the patient and difficulty of the procedure. Conclusions: Accumulating evidence support the use of pharmacological and other pharmacological-free strategies for reducing pain during office hysteroscopy. Nevertheless, future research priorities should aim to identify the recommended approach (or combined approaches) according to the characteristics of the patient and difficulty of the procedure.

No abstract

Background and Objectives: Hysteroscopic endometrial resection (ER) or global endometrial ablation (GEA) are feasible methods to treat heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess patient’s quality of life (QoL) in women treated with ER/GEA compared to hysterectomy. Materials and Methods: Electronic searches in MEDLINE Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, PROSPERO and Cochrane CENTRAL were conducted from their inception to July 2022. Inclusion criteria were RCTs of premenopausal women with HMB randomized to conservative surgical treatment (ER/GEA) or hysterectomy. The primary outcome was the evaluation of QoL using the SF-36 score. Results: Twelve RCTs (2773 women) were included in the analysis. Women treated with hysteroscopic ER/GEA showed significantly lower scores for the SF-36 general health perception (mean difference (MD) −8.56 [95% CI −11.75 to −5.36]; I2 = 0%), social function (MD −12.90 [95% CI −23.90 to −1.68]; I2 = 91%), emotional role limitation (MD −4.64 [95% CI −8.43 to −0.85]; I2 = 0%) and vitality (MD −8.01 [95% CI −14.73 to −1.30]; I2 = 74%) domains relative to hysterectomy. Anxiety, depression scores and complication rates were similar between treatments. Relative to uterine balloon therapy, amenorrhea was more common with EA/GER (relative risk 1.51 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.20] I2 = 28%), but posttreatment satisfaction was similar. Conclusions: Women’s perception of QoL might be seen to be less improved after hysteroscopic ER/GEA rather than hysterectomy. However, such findings need to be confirmed by additional trials due to the high number of outdated studies and recent improvements in hysteroscopic instrumentation and techniques.

No abstract