Role of Diagnostic Office Hysteroscopy in Abnormal Uterine Bleeding and its Histopathological Correlation in Child Bearing Period

Abstract

Strange uterine draining characterized as a seeping from uterine form which is irregular in volume, routineness or potentially timing that has been available for most of the most recent a half year. Assessment of the patients was by history taking, general and nearby assessment, research facility examinations, transvaginal ultrasonography, hysteroscopy and dilatation and curettage with biobsy. To evaluate the Role of Office Hysteroscopy in finding of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding and its Histopathological Correlation in Child Bearing Period. This examination was imminent observational investigation carried on 100 ladies of conceptive age bunch from 18-40 years took care of Benha college emergency clinics between November 2018 to November 2020 to assess the symptomatic and restorative function of office hysteroscopy in anomalous uterine draining and its histopathological connection in ladies inside kid bearing period. Office hysteroscopy had affectability of 88%, explicitness of 84,2%, positive prescient estimation of 96%, negative prescient estimation of 61.5% and demonstrative precision of 87% for diagnosing the intrauterine reason for unusual uterine dying. Office hysteroscopy is a straightforward, essential and generally safe outpatient strategy which permits a satisfactory investigation of the uterine cavity under visual control.

Uterine Niche and Secondary Infertility: Agreement in Diagnosis Using Hysterosalpingography vs. Hydrosonography

“…In this thesis we found that was no significant correlation between scar thickness (niche) and duration of infertility. This was in agreement with the findings of Salah et al, which found secondary infertility in 16.8% of hysteroscopy-observed niche patients, (P value, 1.0) which was not statistically significant [12] . Talamonte et al found that 13% of women with hysteroscopically detected CS defects also experienced secondary infertility (p value, 0.66) [21] .…”

“…In this study we found that the prevalence of niche among studied women was 31 (62%) as diagnosed by hydrosonography. Salah et al, showed that hysteroscopydetected CS niche prevalence was 47.4% [12] , the differences in prevalence could be contributed to the difference in sample size and different methodology between their study and ours. In a study conducted by El-Mazny et al, on 75 women with a previous history of CS who were tested for menstrual problems, in 23 women (31 %) who underwent hysteroscopy, doctors found evidence of CS niche [13] .…”

“…Bij de Vaate et al, there was insignificant difference between Niche group and non-Niche group as regards demographic data (p =0.21) [17] . Salah et al, showed that there was statistical significance between patients with and without niche observed by hysteroscopy regarding age (P value <0.001) [12] .…”

“…Van der Voet et al, found that there was insignificant relation between development of niche and number of cesarean section (p =0.55) [15] . Salah et al, showed that no statistical significance between patients with and without niche observed by hysteroscopy regarding parity (P value, 0.129) [12] . In this study we found that there was statistically significant relation between niche as diagnosed by hydrosonography and uterus length.…”