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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |