Objective: The aim of this study was to compare 22 Fr unipolar resectoscope with the traditional 26 Fr unipolar resectoscope in endometrial polypectomy performed under paracervical block anesthesia. Methods: The trial took place in Gynecologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Tor Vergata University Hospital, Rome. Inclusion criteria were: diagnosis of endometrial polyps <3 cm at office hysteroscopy; agreement of patients to perform surgery under paracervical block anesthesia but not in office setting. Patients with ASA physical status classes III or more and with contraindication to operative hysteroscopy were excluded. Before the procedure, the recruited patients were randomly assigned to two groups, 35 to the 22 Fr unipolar resectoscope group (group A) and 35 to the 26 Fr unipolar resectoscope group (group B). Primary endpoint was the time spent for cervical dilatation and resection. Secondary endpoints were pain during and after surgery, efficacy of paracervical block, use of analgesic drugs during and after the procedure, patients' satisfaction, correlation between pain and menopause or parity. Statistical analysis was performed by the SPSS software, and the tests used were Pearson Chi-Square, One-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney test. A p value <.05 was considered significant. Results: The mean time for cervical dilatation was two minutes in group A (26 Fr) and five minutes in group B (22 Fr, p = .001). Operative mean time was four minutes in group A and seven minutes in group B (p = .001). Pain during dilatation was analogous (VAS = 6, p = .054), while during the procedure it was higher in group B (VAS = 1 vs VAS = 2, p = .003). Sufentanil was administered during resection in 19 patients of group A and in 22 patients of group B (p = .754). General anesthesia was never necessary. Postoperative pain was higher in group B (p = .01). Nine patients of group B needed analgesics, as opposed to no patient of group A (p = .002). Conclusions: The 22 Fr unipolar resectoscope appears advantageous compared to the 26 Fr resectoscope in the resection of endometrial polyps <3 cm, in terms of cervical dilatation and operative time, pain and need of postoperative analgesics. Paracervical block is useful and safe in compliant patients at high risk for general anesthesia.

Remondi, C., Sesti, F., Sorrenti, G., Venezia, G., Sorge, R., Pietropolli, A., et al. (2018). Hysteroscopic polypectomy: a comparison between 22 Fr and 26 Fr resectoscopes under paracervical block anesthesia, a randomized controlled study. MINIMALLY INVASIVE THERAPY & ALLIED TECHNOLOGIES, 27(6), 339-346 [10.1080/13645706.2018.1447965].

Hysteroscopic polypectomy: a comparison between 22 Fr and 26 Fr resectoscopes under paracervical block anesthesia, a randomized controlled study

REMONDI, CRISTINA;Sesti, Francesco
;
Sorge, Roberto;Pietropolli, Adalgisa;Silvi, Beatrice;Piccione, Emilio
2018-12

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare 22 Fr unipolar resectoscope with the traditional 26 Fr unipolar resectoscope in endometrial polypectomy performed under paracervical block anesthesia. Methods: The trial took place in Gynecologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Tor Vergata University Hospital, Rome. Inclusion criteria were: diagnosis of endometrial polyps <3 cm at office hysteroscopy; agreement of patients to perform surgery under paracervical block anesthesia but not in office setting. Patients with ASA physical status classes III or more and with contraindication to operative hysteroscopy were excluded. Before the procedure, the recruited patients were randomly assigned to two groups, 35 to the 22 Fr unipolar resectoscope group (group A) and 35 to the 26 Fr unipolar resectoscope group (group B). Primary endpoint was the time spent for cervical dilatation and resection. Secondary endpoints were pain during and after surgery, efficacy of paracervical block, use of analgesic drugs during and after the procedure, patients' satisfaction, correlation between pain and menopause or parity. Statistical analysis was performed by the SPSS software, and the tests used were Pearson Chi-Square, One-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney test. A p value <.05 was considered significant. Results: The mean time for cervical dilatation was two minutes in group A (26 Fr) and five minutes in group B (22 Fr, p = .001). Operative mean time was four minutes in group A and seven minutes in group B (p = .001). Pain during dilatation was analogous (VAS = 6, p = .054), while during the procedure it was higher in group B (VAS = 1 vs VAS = 2, p = .003). Sufentanil was administered during resection in 19 patients of group A and in 22 patients of group B (p = .754). General anesthesia was never necessary. Postoperative pain was higher in group B (p = .01). Nine patients of group B needed analgesics, as opposed to no patient of group A (p = .002). Conclusions: The 22 Fr unipolar resectoscope appears advantageous compared to the 26 Fr resectoscope in the resection of endometrial polyps <3 cm, in terms of cervical dilatation and operative time, pain and need of postoperative analgesics. Paracervical block is useful and safe in compliant patients at high risk for general anesthesia.
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Esperti anonimi
Settore MED/40 - Ginecologia e Ostetricia
English
endometrial polypectomy; local anesthesia; Operative hysteroscopy; paracervical block; unipolar resectoscope; Surgery
Remondi, C., Sesti, F., Sorrenti, G., Venezia, G., Sorge, R., Pietropolli, A., et al. (2018). Hysteroscopic polypectomy: a comparison between 22 Fr and 26 Fr resectoscopes under paracervical block anesthesia, a randomized controlled study. MINIMALLY INVASIVE THERAPY & ALLIED TECHNOLOGIES, 27(6), 339-346 [10.1080/13645706.2018.1447965].
Remondi, C; Sesti, F; Sorrenti, G; Venezia, G; Sorge, R; Pietropolli, A; Silvi, B; Piccione, E
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
hysteroscopic polypectomy Mitat.pdf

non disponibili

Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 998.4 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
998.4 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2108/197019
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
social impact