Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2017, Vol. 44 Issue (4): 599-604    DOI: 10.12891/ceog3247.2017
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Comparison of office hysteroscopy and dilatation & curettage regarding patient comfort, efficacy and quality of life in patients suffering from menorrhagia: prospective randomized study
M.K. Eken1, *(), F. Gungor Ugurlucan2, G. Ilhan3, E. Çöğendez1, B. Devranoğlu1, B. Keyif4, A. Turfanda2
1 Zeynep Kamil, Zeynep Kamil Educational and Research Hospital Obstetric and Gynaecology Department, Istanbul, Turkey
2 Istanbul University, Istanbul Medical Faculty Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul, Turkey
3 Süleymaniye Training and Research Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul, Turkey
4 Istanbul University, Istanbul School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul, Turkey
Download:  PDF
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  Objective: Endometrial sampling is essential to exclude carcinoma and confirm the benign nature of abnormal uterine bleeding. Methods include endometrial biopsy, office hysteroscopy, and dilatation and curettage (D&C). The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of office hysteroscopy and D&C in patients suffering from menorrhagia, and to compare the tolerability and the outcome of the two procedures. Materials and Methods: Forty patients suffering from menorrhagia and willing to participate were included in this prospective study and randomized to office hysteroscopy (n=20) and D&C groups (n=20). Quality of life was evaluated using the Menorrhagia- Impact-Questionnaire (MIQ) before and three months after the procedure. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the pain felt during the procedure. Primary outcomes were patient-reported improvement in menorrhagia and effect on quality of life. Secondary outcomes were objective improvement in the complete-blood-count, tolerability and complications of the procedure, and pathology results. Results: There was a significant difference in the mean VAS results for pain in the office hysteroscopy and D&C groups (p = 0.00). In the MIQ domains, there was a significant improvement in the perception of blood loss in both groups, which was more significant in the office hysteroscopy group when compared to the D&C group. There was a significant improvement in the limitations in work inside/outside home, limitations in physical and social activities in the office hysteroscopy group, and the differences were significant when compared with the D&C group. In the assessment of change in blood loss, the difference between the two groups after the procedure was significant. Twenty patients (100%) in the office hysteroscopy group and 19 patients (95%) in the D&C group suggested that this was a remarkable and important change. Two patients in each group had insufficient tissue for diagnosis. Eight patients in the office hysteroscopy group whereas three patients in the D&C group had endometrial polyps. In one patient in the D&C group, pathology result was submucous leiomyoma. Conclusion: There was a significant patient-reported improvement in menorrhagia and positive effect on quality of life after office hysteroscopy when compared to D&C. Pain was significantly less in the office hysteroscopy when compared to D&C even in patients with lower number of deliveries. Office hysteroscopy was superior to D&C in the diagnosis of intracavitary pathologies.
Key words:  Menorrhagia      Office hysteroscopy      Dilatation and curettage      Quality of life     
Published:  10 August 2017     
*Corresponding Author(s):  M.K. EKEN     E-mail:  meryemkurek@yahoo.com

Cite this article: 

M.K. Eken, F. Gungor Ugurlucan, G. Ilhan, E. Çöğendez, B. Devranoğlu, B. Keyif, A. Turfanda. Comparison of office hysteroscopy and dilatation & curettage regarding patient comfort, efficacy and quality of life in patients suffering from menorrhagia: prospective randomized study. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(4): 599-604.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog3247.2017     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2017/V44/I4/599

[1] A. Camtosun, S. Bicer. The impact of Double J stent on the quality of sexual life and job performance[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(2): 199-201.
[2] Lingping Zhu, Xing Chen, Wenpei Bai, Xiaoyan Yan. Factors associated with the quality of life in women with perimenopausal and postmenopausal status: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey from China[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(1): 90-103.
[3] K. Sanuki, K. Nakayama, K. Nakamura, T. Ishibashi, M. Ishikawa, N. Ishikawa, S. Kyo. Rapidly enlarged uterus following microwave endometrial ablation: a case report[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(1): 159-160.
[4] Jeong Tae Kim, Jong Kil Joo, Hwi Gon Kim, Seung Chul Kim, Ook Whan Choi. Effect of oral contraceptives treatment on quality of life of Korean women with polycystic ovary syndrome[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(4): 582-585.
[5] Ju-Qi Ma, Chun-Fen Guo, Ayshamgul Hasim. Clinical efficacy of levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system for the treatment of adenomyosis in perimenopausal women[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(3): 387-390.
[6] I.D. Gkegkes, C. Iavazzo, G. Iatrakis, P.E. Iavazzo, F. Pechlivani, E. Antoniou, K. Bakalianou. Robotic management of endometriosis: discussion of use, criteria, and advantages. Review of the literature[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(1): 21-23.
[7] A. Cohen, Y. Cohen, S. Sualhi, S. Rayman, F. Azem, G. Rattan. Office hysteroscopy for removal of retained products of conception: can we predict treatment outcome?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(5): 683-685.
[8] K. Nakayama, K. Nakamura, T. Ishibashi, M. Ishikawa, S. Kyo. Microwave endometrial ablation at a frequency of 2.45 GHz for menorrhagia: analysis of its efficacy, recurrence rate, and complications[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(5): 695-699.
[9] F. Nobili, A. Lukic, I. Puccica, M. Vitali, M. Schimberni, F. Manzara, A. Frega, B. Mossa, M. Moscarini, D. Caserta. The relevance of fascial surgical repair in the management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP)[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(5): 744-748.
[10] T. Issat, J. Beta, M.A. Nowicka, A. Durczyński, A.J. Jakimiuk. Pain assessment during outpatient hysteroscopy using room temperature versus warm normal saline solution as a distention medium – a prospective randomized study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(3): 359-363.
[11] K. Wickström, J. Spira, G. Edelstam. Responsiveness of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire in a Swedish sample: an observational study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(3): 413-418.
No Suggested Reading articles found!