阴道镜与传统宫腔镜的比较评价

Q4 Medicine
N. Gupta, U. Jahan, Anuradha Yadav, R. Kumari
{"title":"阴道镜与传统宫腔镜的比较评价","authors":"N. Gupta, U. Jahan, Anuradha Yadav, R. Kumari","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A bstrAct Aim: A randomized case–control study was performed to compare the traditional using a speculum vs vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in terms of pain score and procedure time. Materials and methods: A total of 100 patients aged 20 to 60 years old, including nulliparous, multiparous, and postmenopausal, were randomized in two groups: group A undergoing traditional hysteroscopy with speculum and vulselum (50 patients) and group B undergoing “no-touch” vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. Results: Vaginoscopy was significantly more successful than the traditional hysteroscopy. The total pain was calculated for each group, it was significantly lower in the vaginoscopic technique ( p = 0.026). The mean time was 5.71 for traditional hysteroscopy and 4.44 for vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. The time taken to perform hysteroscopy was significantly shorter with vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. There was no difference in failure rates. Conclusion: The vaginoscopic approach is better tolerated, quicker to perform, less painful, and therefore, more successful than the traditional hysteroscopy using the speculum. It should be preferred in an outpatient setting.","PeriodicalId":38741,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Vaginoscopic vs Traditional Hysteroscopy\",\"authors\":\"N. Gupta, U. Jahan, Anuradha Yadav, R. Kumari\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1455\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A bstrAct Aim: A randomized case–control study was performed to compare the traditional using a speculum vs vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in terms of pain score and procedure time. Materials and methods: A total of 100 patients aged 20 to 60 years old, including nulliparous, multiparous, and postmenopausal, were randomized in two groups: group A undergoing traditional hysteroscopy with speculum and vulselum (50 patients) and group B undergoing “no-touch” vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. Results: Vaginoscopy was significantly more successful than the traditional hysteroscopy. The total pain was calculated for each group, it was significantly lower in the vaginoscopic technique ( p = 0.026). The mean time was 5.71 for traditional hysteroscopy and 4.44 for vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. The time taken to perform hysteroscopy was significantly shorter with vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. There was no difference in failure rates. Conclusion: The vaginoscopic approach is better tolerated, quicker to perform, less painful, and therefore, more successful than the traditional hysteroscopy using the speculum. It should be preferred in an outpatient setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1455\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1455","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:采用随机病例对照研究,比较传统腹腔镜宫腔镜与阴道镜宫腔镜在疼痛评分和手术时间方面的差异。材料与方法:选取20 ~ 60岁未产、多产、绝经后患者100例,随机分为两组:A组(50例)行传统腔阴宫腔镜;B组(50例)行“无接触”阴道镜宫腔镜。结果:阴道镜检查的成功率明显高于传统宫腔镜检查。计算各组总疼痛,阴道镜组疼痛明显低于对照组(p = 0.026)。传统宫腔镜平均时间为5.71,阴道镜平均时间为4.44。阴道镜下宫腔镜检查的时间明显缩短。失败率没有差别。结论:阴道镜入路比传统宫腔镜入路耐受性好,手术速度快,疼痛小,手术成功率高。它应该优先在门诊设置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Evaluation of Vaginoscopic vs Traditional Hysteroscopy
A bstrAct Aim: A randomized case–control study was performed to compare the traditional using a speculum vs vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in terms of pain score and procedure time. Materials and methods: A total of 100 patients aged 20 to 60 years old, including nulliparous, multiparous, and postmenopausal, were randomized in two groups: group A undergoing traditional hysteroscopy with speculum and vulselum (50 patients) and group B undergoing “no-touch” vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. Results: Vaginoscopy was significantly more successful than the traditional hysteroscopy. The total pain was calculated for each group, it was significantly lower in the vaginoscopic technique ( p = 0.026). The mean time was 5.71 for traditional hysteroscopy and 4.44 for vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. The time taken to perform hysteroscopy was significantly shorter with vaginoscopic hysteroscopy. There was no difference in failure rates. Conclusion: The vaginoscopic approach is better tolerated, quicker to perform, less painful, and therefore, more successful than the traditional hysteroscopy using the speculum. It should be preferred in an outpatient setting.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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