Abstract
We reviewed scientific literature relating to the vaginal speculum considering the widespread use of this tool within women’s health. Through a literature review, it is clear that the speculum is not specialized enough to be used for all populations who require the procedure. Despite the fact that the current standard of care is not sufficient for all patients, evaluations of industry solutions are not evident in the current literature, explaining physician hesitancy to adopt these new devices. Additionally, while scholarly literature exists regarding overviews of the topic, novel designs, and general improvements for speculum usage in pelvic examinations, there are noticeable gaps in the scholarship regarding frequency of scholarly output and a blatant disregard for obese populations in vaginal speculum research. More scholarly literature must be published in order to improve awareness of the vaginal speculum and pelvic examinations so that women receive the best care possible. More specifically, novel designs must be evaluated for efficacy and comfort, and more research should be conducted on the pelvic examination procedure and its use on obese patients.
Highlights
The vaginal speculum is the staple instrument used to evaluate women’s gynecological health
It is clear that industry solution redesigns have not gone through enough of the rigorous testing required to overtake the current standard of care
There were nine publications that focused on improving the pelvic examinations that were unrelated to a physical redesign of the vaginal speculum
Summary
The vaginal speculum is the staple instrument used to evaluate women’s gynecological health. Today’s vaginal speculum has the same basic, bi-valve design as it did in its inception, with the most common designs being the Graves and Pederson specula (Rossmann). Though novel specula have been developed, these redesigns (Kent; Yona; Mailach; Taylor; Bridea Medical; Traub; Matschukat; Duke) have not overtaken the traditional, bi-valve design developed by Sims. This could be attributed to the disconnect between academia and industry, as well as physician reluctance to use a design that hasn’t been heavily tested (Taylor). Only one redesign—the Veda Scope—is evident in the current literature.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
