Hysteroscopy in an outpatient setting–38 months experience

Abstract

INTRODUTION: Hysteroscopy is one the main diagnostic and therapeutic tools of modern Gynecology, allowing a direct visualization of the uterine cavity for diagnosis and minimally invasive intervention with sampling or removal of any structural abnormalities. At our unit office-based diagnostic hysteroscopy is not available; as such the pre-operative imaging diagnosis is largely based on transvaginal or pelvic ultrasound, often with hysterosonography. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate de correlation between the pre-operative diagnosis, hysteroscopic findings, and histological analysis, concerning all hysteroscopies performed at our Outpatient Surgery Unit during 38 months of activity. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective study based on the review of medical files from patients who underwent hysteroscopic procedures at our institution's Outpatient Surgery Unit from November 1st 2012 to December 31st 2015. RESULTS: During the study period 644 hysteroscopies were performed, all under sedation. The patients’ average age was 55 years (27 to 87), 60% were post-menopausal and 77% presented co-morbidities, 8% having a history of breast cancer with current or previous treatment with tamoxifen. All patients had an ultrasound evaluation, 66% at our ultrasound unit (55% with hysterosonography). The main indications for hysteroscopy were: suspected post-menopausal asymptomatic polyps (34%); suspected pre-menopausal polyps (31%); suspected post-menopausal symptomatic polyps (12%); post-menopausal endometrial thickening (12%); retained trophoblastic products (2%). The main findings were: endometrial polyp(s) (70%); endometrial thickening/irregularities (6%); polypoid/secretory endometrium (2%); submucosal leiomyoma (1,2%); suspicious vegetative formations (0,5%); no abnormalities, normal endometrium (11%). Cervical dilation was used in 14% of the procedures; in 0,8% the endometrial cavity was not accessed due to cervical stenosis. Globally, intra-operative findings were concordant with the presumptive diagnosis by ultrasound in 77% of cases, 82% when hysterosonography was previously used. Bipolar energy was used in 39% of the operative procedures; curettage was performed in 37% of the cases. There was four cases of endometrial adenocarcinoma and two of complex hyperplasia with atypia. The diagnosed complications were: uterine perforation (n = 5); bowel injury (n = 1); moderate uterine bleeding (n = 3). CONCLUSION: The indications and complications rate were similar to other centers described in literature. The previous detailed ultrasound study with hysterosonography resulted in a high rate of agreement between the presumptive diagnosis and intra-operative findings, resulting in a more accurate referral to operative hysteroscopy and obviating a previous diagnostic hysteroscopy. This strategy has been previous advocated by other authors, which reduces the number of hysteroscopies per patient, and is particularly relevant in centers without the possibility of office-based procedures.