Impact of uterine cavity filling pressure levels on pain and procedure duration in diagnostic hysteroscopy: A retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Can Tercan, Emrah Dagdeviren, Ali Selcuk Yeniocak, Sultan Can, Burak Yucel
{"title":"Impact of uterine cavity filling pressure levels on pain and procedure duration in diagnostic hysteroscopy: A retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Can Tercan, Emrah Dagdeviren, Ali Selcuk Yeniocak, Sultan Can, Burak Yucel","doi":"10.1111/jog.16146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study investigates the impact of intracavitary pressure levels on pain, visualization quality, and procedure duration in office hysteroscopy, comparing standard pressures (60-100 mmHg) with high pressures (110-150 mmHg).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving non-menopausal women undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy at a tertiary clinic. Patients were categorized into two groups based on intracavitary pressure: the standard pressure group (60-100 mmHg; n = 72) and the high-pressure group (110-150 mmHg; n = 37). Outcomes measured included pain scores, procedure duration, and fluid volume used. Logistic regression was employed to identify risk factors for severe pain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The high-pressure group demonstrated significantly shorter procedure durations compared to the standard pressure group (96.56 ± 34.36 vs. 163.00 ± 61.78 s, p < 0.001). Pain scores were lower in the high-pressure group (VAS 3.00 [0.00-7.00] vs. 3.50 [0.00-9.00], p = 0.041). Additionally, high-pressure procedures used less fluid compared to standard pressure procedures, which helps to reduce the risk of fluid-related complications. Logistic regression analysis identified higher fluid volumes (odds ratio [OR] = 1.005, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.001-1.010) and the need for pressure increases (OR = 3.914, 95% CI = 1.157-13.238) as significant risk factors for severe pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Higher intracavitary pressure levels (above 100 mmHg) in office hysteroscopy are associated with reduced pain, shorter procedure durations, and decreased fluid use, enhancing visualization and procedural efficiency while maintaining patient comfort.</p>","PeriodicalId":16593,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.16146","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This study investigates the impact of intracavitary pressure levels on pain, visualization quality, and procedure duration in office hysteroscopy, comparing standard pressures (60-100 mmHg) with high pressures (110-150 mmHg).

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving non-menopausal women undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy at a tertiary clinic. Patients were categorized into two groups based on intracavitary pressure: the standard pressure group (60-100 mmHg; n = 72) and the high-pressure group (110-150 mmHg; n = 37). Outcomes measured included pain scores, procedure duration, and fluid volume used. Logistic regression was employed to identify risk factors for severe pain.

Results: The high-pressure group demonstrated significantly shorter procedure durations compared to the standard pressure group (96.56 ± 34.36 vs. 163.00 ± 61.78 s, p < 0.001). Pain scores were lower in the high-pressure group (VAS 3.00 [0.00-7.00] vs. 3.50 [0.00-9.00], p = 0.041). Additionally, high-pressure procedures used less fluid compared to standard pressure procedures, which helps to reduce the risk of fluid-related complications. Logistic regression analysis identified higher fluid volumes (odds ratio [OR] = 1.005, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.001-1.010) and the need for pressure increases (OR = 3.914, 95% CI = 1.157-13.238) as significant risk factors for severe pain.

Conclusions: Higher intracavitary pressure levels (above 100 mmHg) in office hysteroscopy are associated with reduced pain, shorter procedure durations, and decreased fluid use, enhancing visualization and procedural efficiency while maintaining patient comfort.

宫腔充盈压力水平对诊断性宫腔镜检查中疼痛和手术持续时间的影响:一项回顾性队列研究。
目的:本研究比较了标准压力(60-100 mmHg)和高压(110-150 mmHg),探讨了腔内压力水平对诊室宫腔镜检查中疼痛、可视化质量和手术持续时间的影响:我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象是在一家三级医院接受诊断性宫腔镜检查的非绝经妇女。根据腔内压力将患者分为两组:标准压力组(60-100 mmHg;n = 72)和高压组(110-150 mmHg;n = 37)。测量结果包括疼痛评分、手术持续时间和所用液体量。采用逻辑回归法确定严重疼痛的风险因素:结果:与标准压力组相比,高压组的手术持续时间明显更短(96.56 ± 34.36 vs. 163.00 ± 61.78 秒,P 结论:高压组的手术持续时间明显更短,而标准压力组的手术持续时间明显更长(96.56 ± 34.36 vs. 163.00 ± 61.78 秒,P 结论):诊室宫腔镜检查中较高的腔内压力水平(高于 100 mmHg)与减轻疼痛、缩短手术时间和减少液体用量有关,在保持患者舒适度的同时提高了可视化和手术效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
376
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research is the official Journal of the Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and aims to provide a medium for the publication of articles in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology. The Journal publishes original research articles, case reports, review articles and letters to the editor. The Journal will give publication priority to original research articles over case reports. Accepted papers become the exclusive licence of the Journal. Manuscripts are peer reviewed by at least two referees and/or Associate Editors expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信