Opinion

You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

Fear no pain: uterine cavity and tubal patency assessment tests should be pain free

  1. I. Tur-Kaspa*

Article first published online: 27 FEB 2012

DOI: 10.1002/uog.11128

Issue

Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Volume 39, Issue 3, pages 247–251, March 2012

Additional Information

How to Cite

Tur-Kaspa, I. (2012), Fear no pain: uterine cavity and tubal patency assessment tests should be pain free. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 39: 247–251. doi: 10.1002/uog.11128

Author Information

  1. Institute for Human Reproduction (IHR), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Chicago, 2825 N. Halsted St., Chicago, IL 60657, USA

*Institute for Human Reproduction (IHR), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Chicago, 2825 N. Halsted St., Chicago, IL 60657, USA

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 27 FEB 2012
  2. Article first published online: 27 FEB 2012

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (73K)

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Szymoniak K, Cwiek D, Berezowska E, Branecka-Woźniak D, Dzióbek I, Malinowski W. Women's opinions regarding gynaecological examination in a hospital. Ginekol Pol [Polish] 2009; 80: 498–502.
  • 2
    Hoyo C, Yarnall KSH, Skinner CS, Moorman PG, Sellers D, Reid L. Pain predicts non-adherence to pap smear screening among middle-aged African American women. Prev Med 2005; 41: 439–445.
  • 3
    Seehusen DA, Johnson DR, Earwood JS, Sethuraman SN, Cornali J, Gillespie K, Doria M, Farnell E 4th, Lanham J. Improving women's experience during speculum examinations at routine gynaecological visits: randomised clinical trial. BMJ 2006; 333: 171.
  • 4
    Seymore C, DuRant RH, Jay MS, Freeman D, Gomez L, Sharp C, Linder CW. Influence of position during examination, and sex of examiner on patient anxiety during pelvic examination. J Pediatr 1986; 108: 312–317.
  • 5
    Thomas A, Weisberg E, Lieberman D, Fraser IS. A randomised controlled trial comparing a dilating vaginal speculum with a conventional bivalve speculum. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 41: 379–386.
    Direct Link:
  • 6
    Williams JG, Park LI, Kline J. Reducing distress associated with pelvic examinations: a stimulus control intervention. Women Health 1992; 18: 41–53.
  • 7
    Wright D, Fenwick J, Stephenson P, Monterosso L. Speculum ‘self-insertion’: a pilot study. J Clin Nurs 2005; 14: 1098–1111.
    Direct Link:
  • 8
    Hill DA, Lamvu G. Effect of lubricating gel on patient comfort during vaginal speculum examination: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119: 227–231.
  • 9
    Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med 2001; 8: 1153–1157.
    Direct Link:
  • 10
    Saunders RD, Shwayder JM, Nakajima ST. Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2171–2179.
  • 11
    Sholkoff SD. Balloon hysterosalpingography catheter. Am J Radiol 1987; 149: 995–996.
  • 12
    Varpula M. Hysterosalpingography with a balloon catheter versus a cannula: evaluation of patient pain. Radiology 1989; 172: 745–747.
  • 13
    Tur-Kaspa I, Seidman DS, Soriano D, Greenberg I, Dor J, Bider D. Hysterosalpingography with a balloon catheter versus a metal cannula: a prospective, randomized, blinded comparative study. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 75–77.
  • 14
    Mansour R, Nada A, El-Khayat W, Abdel-Hak A, Inany H. A simple and relatively painless technique for hysterosalpingography, using a thin catheter and closing the cervix with the vaginal speculum: a pilot study. Postgrad Med J 2011; 87: 468–471.
  • 15
    Anserini P, Delfino F, Ferraiolo A, Remorgida V, Menoni S, De Caro G. Strategies to minimize discomfort during diagnostic hysterosalpingography with disposable balloon catheters: a randomized placebo-controlled study with oral nonsteroidal premedication. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: 844–848.
  • 16
    Ricci G, Guastalla P, Ammar L, Cervi G, Guarnieri S, Sartore A. Balloon catheter vs. cervical vacuum cup for hysterosalpingography: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. Fertil Steril 2007; 87: 1458–1467.
  • 17
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Technology Assessment in Obstetrics and Gynecology No. 5: sonohysterography. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 1467–1469.
  • 18
    AIUM Practice Guideline for the Performance of Sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 2012; 31: 165–172.
  • 19
    Goldstein Sr. Modern evaluation of the endometrium. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 168–176.
  • 20
    Leone FP, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Valentin L, Epstein E, Goldstein SR, Marret H, Parsons AK, Gull B, Istre O, Sepulveda W, Ferrazzi E, Van den Bosch T. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 103–112.
    Direct Link:
  • 21
    Tur-Kaspa I, Gal M, Hartman M, Hartman J, Hartman A. A prospective evaluation of uterine abnormalities by saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) in 1009 women with infertility or abnormal uterine bleeding. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 1731–1735.
  • 22
    Volpi E, Zuccaro G, Patriarca A, Rustichelli S, Sismondi P. Transvaginal sonographic tubal patency testing using air and saline solution as contrast media in a routine infertility clinic setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 43–48.
    Direct Link:
  • 23
    Campbell S, Bourne TH, Tan SL, Collins WP. Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy) and its future role within the investigation of infertility in Europe. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4: 245–253.
    Direct Link:
  • 24
    Ayida G, Kennedy S, Barlow D, Chamberlain P. A comparison of patient tolerance of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) with Echovist-200 and X-ray hysterosalpingography for outpatient investigation of infertile women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 201–204.
    Direct Link:
  • 25
    Papaioannou S, Bourdrez P, Varma R, Afnan M, Mol BW, Coomarasamy A. Tubal evaluation in the investigation of subfertility: a structured comparison of tests. BJOG 2004; 111: 1313–1321.
    Direct Link:
  • 26
    Hamilton JA, Larson AJ, Lower AM, Hasnain S, Grudzinskas JG. Evaluation of the performance of HSG in 500 consecutive, unselected, infertile women. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1519–1526.
  • 27
    Tur-Kaspa I, Achiron R, Aviram R, Caspi B, Eliyahu S, Gohar J, Har-Toov Y, Herman A, Jaffa A, Levitas E, Lewin A, Margalioth EJ, Meizner I, Rabinowich R, Shalev J, Shoham Z, Tepper R, Weiner E, Weiner Z, Weinraub Z, Wiezman B, Yanai N, Yagel S. Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy) with Echovist® -200 for tubal patency assessment: A multicenter study. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Israeli Fertility Association, April 26–29, 1998; Tel Aviv, Israel.
  • 28
    Hamed HO, Shahin AY, Elsamman AM. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography versus radiographic hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of tubal patency. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 105: 215–217.
  • 29
    Confino E, Tur-Kaspa I, DeCherney A, Corfman R, Coulam C, Robinson E, Haas G, Katz E, Vermesh M, Gleicher N. Transcervical balloon tuboplasty: a multicenter study. JAMA 1990; 264: 2079–2082.
  • 30
    Golan A, Tur-Kaspa I. The management of the infertile patient with proximal tubal occlusion. Hum Reprod 1996; 11: 1833–1834.
  • 31
    Tur-Kaspa I, Moscovici O, Meltzer S, Peled R, Rabinson J, Segal S. Transcervical tubal catheterization (TTC) is the treatment of choice for infertile women with proximal tubal obstruction—an experience with 1010 fallopian tubes. Fertil Steril 2002; 78 (Suppl 1) S90.
  • 32
    Das S, Nardo LG, Seif MW. Proximal tubal disease: the place for tubal cannulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 15: 383–388.
  • 33
    Confino E, Tur-Kaspa I, Gleicher N. Sonographic transcervical balloon tuboplasty. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 1271–1273.
  • 34
    Session DR, Lerner JP, Tchen CK, Kelly AC. Ultrasound-guided fallopian tube cannulation using Albunex. Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 972–974.
  • 35
    Ahmad G, Duffy J, Watson AJ. Pain relief in hysterosalpingography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 2: CD006106.
  • 36
    Ahmad G, Attarbashi S, O'Flynn H, Watson AJ. Pain relief in office gynaecology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 155: 3–13.
  • 37
    Sohail S. Variables affecting immediate pain tolerance in X-ray hysterosalpingography. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2004; 14: 170–172.
  • 38
    Oystein F, McCulloch CA. Impact of anxiety on pain perception associated with periodontal and implant surgery in a private practice. J Periodontol 2011; Dec 19. [Epub ahead of print].
  • 39
    Karasahin E, Alanbay I, Keskin U, Gezginc K, Baser I. Lidocaine 10% spray reduces pain during hysterosalpingography: a randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2009; 35: 354–358.
    Direct Link:
  • 40
    Guzel AI, Kuyumcuoglu U, Erdemoǧlu M. The effect of flurbiprofen as prophylactic analgesic before hysterosalpingography. J Int Med Res 2010; 38: 1780–1784.
  • 41
    Ghazeeri GS, Kutteh WH, Ke RW, Voss A. Sonohysterography (SHG): a prospective study to determine patient acceptability of SHG over hysterosalpingography (HSG) in the assessment of uterine structural abnormalities and tubal patency. Fertil Steril 2000; 74 (Suppl 1) S234–S235.
  • 42
    Bareddy HB, Kutteh WH, Voss A, Ke RW. Sonohysterography: a prospective study for the assessment of uterine structural abnormalities and tolerability in women. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 (Suppl 2) S64–S65.
  • 43
    Socolov D, Boian I, Boiculese L, Tamba B, Anghelache-Lupascu I, Socolov R. Comparison of the pain experienced by infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingo contrast sonography or radiographic hysterosalpingography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 111: 256–259.
  • 44
    Moro F, Selvaggi L, Sagnella F, Morciano A, Martinez D, Gangale MF, Ciardulli A, Palla C, Uras ML, De Feo E, Boccia S, Tropea A, Lanzone A, Apa R. Could antispasmodic drug reduce pain during hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) in infertile patients? A randomized double-blind clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 260–265.
    Direct Link:
  • 45
    Jareethum R, Suksompong S, Petyim S, Prechapanich J, Laokirkkiat P, Choavaratana R. Efficacy of mefenamic acid and hyoscine for pain relief during saline infusion sonohysterography in infertile women: a double blind randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 155: 193–198.
  • 46
    Marret H, Veyer L, Wagner N. How I do…sonohysterography. Gynecol Obstet Fertil [French] 2008; 36: 659–661.
  • 47
    Spieldoch RL, Winter TC, Schouweiler C, Ansay S, Evans MD, Lindheim Sr. Optimal catheter placement during sonohysterography: a randomized controlled trial comparing cervical to uterine placement. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 15–21.
  • 48
    Elsayes KM, Pandya A, Platt JF, Bude RO. Technique and diagnostic utility of saline infusion sonohysterography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 105: 5–9.
  • 49
    Savelli L, Pollastri P, Guerrini M, Villa G, Manuzzi L, Mabrouk M, Rossi S, Seracchioli R. Tolerability, side effects, and complications of hysterosalpingocontrast sonography (HyCoSy). Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 1481–6.
  • 50
    Nirmal D, Griffiths AN, Jose G, Evans J. Warming Echovist contrast medium for hysterocontrastsonography and the effect on the incidence of pelvic pain. A randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1052–1054.
  • 51
    Ziegler D. Contrast ultrasound: a simple-to-use phase-shifting medium offers saline infusion sonography-like images. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 369–373.
  • 52
    Van Den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D, Luts J, Bignardi T, Condous G, Epstein E, Leone FP, Testa AC, Valentin L, Van Huffel S, Bourne T, Timmerman D. Effect of gel-instillation sonography on Doppler ultrasound findings in endometrial polyps. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 355–359.
    Direct Link:
  • 53
    Zhou L, Zhang X, Chen X, Liao L, Pan R, Zhou N, Di N. The value of three-dimensional hystero-salpingo-contrast sonography with SonoVue in the assessment of tubal patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; DOI: 10.1002/uog.11085.
    Direct Link:
  • 54
    Allison SJ, Horrow MM, Kim HY, Lev-Toaff AS. Saline-infused sonohysterography: tips for achieving greater success. Radiographics 2011; 31: 1991–2004.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (73K)