Cargando…

Does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection?

OBJECTIVE: Today, thanks to its many advantages, hysteroscopy with a vaginoscopic approach (no-touch) is increasingly being used more in outpatient diagnoses and treatments. However, there are concerns that the “no-touch” technique increases ascending genital tract infections since a speculum is not...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Kovalak, Evrim Ebru
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Galenos Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9249365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35770455
http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2022.04272
_version_ 1784739564938592256
author Kovalak, Evrim Ebru
author_facet Kovalak, Evrim Ebru
author_sort Kovalak, Evrim Ebru
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Today, thanks to its many advantages, hysteroscopy with a vaginoscopic approach (no-touch) is increasingly being used more in outpatient diagnoses and treatments. However, there are concerns that the “no-touch” technique increases ascending genital tract infections since a speculum is not inserted, and disinfection of the cervix cannot achieve. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2011 and 2017, 302 patients who underwent office hysteroscopy with the vaginoscopic approach (group 1) and 254 patients who underwent hysteroscopy with the standard method under anesthesia in the operating room (group 2) were compared in terms of early complications (within two weeks postoperatively). The primary outcome was early postoperative infection, and the secondary outcome was other early complications, such as bleeding and rupture. RESULTS: In this study, the success rate of hysteroscopy with the vaginoscopic approach was 96.4%. According to the visual analog scale scoring system, 88.7% of the patients described mild-to-moderate pain. When group 1 and 2 were compared in terms of postoperative infection (3% and 2.4%, respectively) and other early complication rates (0% and 0.8%, respectively), no statistically significant difference was found (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopy with a vaginoscopic approach continues to be the gold standard method that is safe and well-tolerated by patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9249365
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Galenos Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92493652022-07-14 Does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection? Kovalak, Evrim Ebru Turk J Obstet Gynecol Clinical Investigation OBJECTIVE: Today, thanks to its many advantages, hysteroscopy with a vaginoscopic approach (no-touch) is increasingly being used more in outpatient diagnoses and treatments. However, there are concerns that the “no-touch” technique increases ascending genital tract infections since a speculum is not inserted, and disinfection of the cervix cannot achieve. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2011 and 2017, 302 patients who underwent office hysteroscopy with the vaginoscopic approach (group 1) and 254 patients who underwent hysteroscopy with the standard method under anesthesia in the operating room (group 2) were compared in terms of early complications (within two weeks postoperatively). The primary outcome was early postoperative infection, and the secondary outcome was other early complications, such as bleeding and rupture. RESULTS: In this study, the success rate of hysteroscopy with the vaginoscopic approach was 96.4%. According to the visual analog scale scoring system, 88.7% of the patients described mild-to-moderate pain. When group 1 and 2 were compared in terms of postoperative infection (3% and 2.4%, respectively) and other early complication rates (0% and 0.8%, respectively), no statistically significant difference was found (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopy with a vaginoscopic approach continues to be the gold standard method that is safe and well-tolerated by patients. Galenos Publishing 2022-06 2022-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9249365/ /pubmed/35770455 http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2022.04272 Text en ©Copyright 2022 by Turkish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology | Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published by Galenos Publishing House. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Investigation
Kovalak, Evrim Ebru
Does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection?
title Does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection?
title_full Does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection?
title_fullStr Does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection?
title_full_unstemmed Does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection?
title_short Does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection?
title_sort does “no-touch” technique hysteroscopy increase the risk of infection?
topic Clinical Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9249365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35770455
http://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2022.04272
work_keys_str_mv AT kovalakevrimebru doesnotouchtechniquehysteroscopyincreasetheriskofinfection