Author | Evangelista, Alessandra | |
Author | Oliveira, Marco Aurélio Pinho de | |
Author | Crispi, Claudio Peixoto | |
Author | Lamblet, Márcio F. | |
Author | Raymundo, Thiers S. | |
Author | Santos, Luis Carlos | |
Access date | 2013-01-02T12:57:13Z | |
Available date | 2013-01-02T12:57:13Z | |
Document date | 2011 | |
Citation | EVANGELISTA, Alessandra et al. Diagnostic hysteroscopy using liquid distention medium: comparison of pain with warmed saline solution vs room-temperature saline solution. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Philadelphia, v. 18, n. 1, p. 104-107, Jan./Feb. 2011. | pt_BR |
ISSN | 1553-4650 | |
URI | https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/6072 | |
Language | eng | pt_BR |
Publisher | Elsevier | pt_BR |
xmlui.metadata.dc.relation.isbasedon | Chang CC. Efficacy of office diagnostic hysterofibroscopy. J Minim
Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:172–175. | pt_BR |
xmlui.metadata.dc.relation.isbasedon | De Iaco P, Maranbini A, Stefaneli M, Del Vechio C, Bovicelli L. Acceptability
and pain of outpatient hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol
Laparosc. 2000;7:71–75. | pt_BR |
xmlui.metadata.dc.relation.isbasedon | de Carvalho Schettini JA, Ramos de Amorim MM, Ribeiro Costa AA,
Albuquerque Neto LC. Pain evaluation in outpatients undergoing diagnostic
anesthesia-free hysteroscopy in a teaching hospital: a cohort study.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:729–735. | pt_BR |
xmlui.metadata.dc.relation.isbasedon | Bettocchi S, Selvaggi L. A vaginoscopic approach to reduce the pain of
office hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1997;4:255–258. | pt_BR |
xmlui.metadata.dc.relation.isbasedon | Stritzhavoc NA, Lebedev VA, Baev OR, Aslanov AG. Current diagnostic
methods and therapeutic principles in various forms of puerperal
endometritis. Akush Ginekol. 1991;5:37–42. | pt_BR |
xmlui.metadata.dc.relation.isbasedon | Brusco GF, Arena S, Angelini A. Use of carbon dioxide versus normal
saline for diagnostic hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:993–997. | pt_BR |
xmlui.metadata.dc.relation.isbasedon | Almeida ZMMC, Pontes R, Costa HLF. Evaluation of pain in diagnostic
hysteroscopy by vaginoscopy using normal saline at body temperature as
distension medium: a randomized controlled trial [in Portuguese]. Rev
Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2008;30:25–30. | pt_BR |
xmlui.metadata.dc.relation.isbasedon | Champely S. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2007. Available at: http://www.Rproject.
org. Accessed March 10, 2009. | pt_BR |
Rights | restricted access | pt_BR |
Title | Diagnostic hysteroscopy using liquid distention medium: comparison of pain with warmed saline solution vs room-temperature saline solution | pt_BR |
Type | Article | pt_BR |
DOI | 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.09.009 | |
Abstract | Study Objective: To compare pain intensity and degree of satisfaction reported by patients undergoing hysteroscopic examinations using saline solution kept at room temperature (control group) or saline solution heated to 37.5 C (test group). Design: Randomized, controlled, prospective study (Canadian Task Force Classification I). Patients: Sixty-four women underwent diagnostic hysteroscopy during the second half of 2008. Intervention: In both the test and control groups, examinations were performed using the vaginoscopy technique without use of a speculum or Pozzi tenaculum forceps. Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale immediately after the examination and at 1 and 15 minutes after the procedure. Measurements and Main Results: Immediately after the examination, mean (SD; 95% confidence interval) pain intensity in the warmed saline solution group was 3.84 (2.71; 2.89–4.79), and in the room-temperature saline solution group was 4.31 (3.02; 3.18–5.44) (p 5 .51). At 1 and 15 minutes after the procedure, pain intensity in the 2 groups was, respectively, 2.41 (2.00; 1.66–3.16) and 2.43 (2.49; 1.57–3.30) (p 5 .96), and 1.83 (2.30; 1.02–2.64) and 1.85 (2.06; 1.08–2.62) (p 5 .96). Differences were not significant. Time to complete the examination was 3.80 (1.32; 3.34–4.26) minutes in the test group, and 3.75 (1.10; 3.34–4.15) minutes in the control group (p 5 .82). The satisfaction rate with the warmed distention medium was 84% (95% confidence interval, 72%–96%), and with the room-temperature saline solution was 85% (73%–97%) with saline at room temperature (p 5 .48). Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups insofar as pain, duration of the examination, and degree of patient satisfaction. | pt_BR |
Affilliation | Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Departamento de Ginecologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. | pt_BR |
Affilliation | Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Departamento de Ginecologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. | pt_BR |
Affilliation | Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Departamento de Ginecologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. | pt_BR |
Affilliation | Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Departamento de Ginecologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. | pt_BR |
Affilliation | Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Departamento de Ginecologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. | pt_BR |
Affilliation | Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Fernandes Figueira. Departamento de Ginecologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. | pt_BR |
Subject | Abnormal uterine bleeding | pt_BR |
Subject | Hysteroscopy | pt_BR |
Subject | Pain | pt_BR |
Subject | Warmed Saline Solution | pt_BR |
Subject | Visual Analog Scale | pt_BR |
DeCS | Histeroscopia | pt_BR |
DeCS | Dor | pt_BR |
DeCS | Solução Salina Hipertônica | pt_BR |
DeCS | Medição da Dor | pt_BR |
Embargo date | 2030-12-31 | |