Gynaecology Research - Pap Smears, Laparoscopy, Ultrasound, Hysteroscopy

Gynaecology Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Gynaecology, including details on pap smears, laparoscopy, ultrasound, hysteroscopy.


Gynaecology Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About Gynaecology

Books on Gynaecology

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



Vaginal misoprostol for cervical priming prior to diagnostic hysteroscopy--efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction: a randomized controlled trial.

Singh N, Ghosh B, Naha M, Mittal S

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaginal misoprostol for cervical priming prior to diagnostic hysteroscopy and to assess impact on pain scores and patient satisfaction. METHODS: One hundred women undergoing hysteroscopy were randomly allocated into two groups. The study group (n = 50) received 400 microg of misoprostol vaginally (self administered) 4-6 h prior to hysteroscopy while the control group (n = 50) did not receive any cervical priming. Primary outcome measured was need for cervical dilatation, analgesia or sedation. Secondary outcomes were pain scores, patient satisfaction and side effects. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the need for cervical dilatation, analgesia or sedation in the two groups (P = 0.25, 0.64 and 0.5, respectively). In addition, there was no difference in subjective patient satisfaction (P = 0.70). However, those in the control group recorded a higher pain score (median +/- SD = 5 +/- 1.8) when compared to those who received misoprostol (median +/- SD = 4.5 +/- 2, P = 0.03). Only two women (4%) had bleeding per vaginum and one (2%) had a slight fever attributable to misoprostol. CONCLUSION: Vaginal misoprostol prior to diagnostic hysteroscopy did not facilitate cervical dilatation. It did effect a reduction in pain scores, but there was no difference in patient satisfaction, need for analgesia or sedation. No significant side effects were reported.

Published 1 May 2008 in Arch Gynecol Obstet.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2005-2008 Gynaecology Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



Gynaecology Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2005)
  Issue 1 (October)
  Issue 2 (November)
  Issue 3 (December)

Volume 2 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)



Gynaecology Books

Anaesthesia for Obstetrics and Gynaecology: Fundamentals of Anaesthesia and Acute Medicine

Anaesthesia for Obstetrics and Gynaecology: Fundamentals of Anaesthesia and Acute Medicine