ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2020
Three Thousand Cases of Office Hysteroscopy: See and Treat an Indian Experience.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety evaluation of percutaneous intrauterine hydrodissection in microwave ablation of uterine fibroids adjacent to the endometrium.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Pain Severity During Hysteroscopy by GUBBINI System in Local Anesthesia: Covariance Analysis of Treatment and Effects, Including Patient Emotional State.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Outpatient Hysteroscopic Polypectomy-A Retrospective Study Comparing Rigid and Semirigid Office Hysteroscopes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveAssessment of feasibility of office hysteroscopy in Indian setting.
designRetrospective study design.
settingTertiary care centre: Galaxy care Hospital, Pune, India. PATIENTS: Three thousand consecutive women undergoing office hysteroscopy between 2012 and May 2018.
interventionsOffice hysteroscopy 2200 cases (2012-2017) with Bettocchi 2.9 scope and Hamou endomat. Eight hundred cases (2017-2018) with Bettocchi 1.9 scope and EASI. Normal saline was used as distension medium. With Hamou endomat, settings have drip rate of 200 ml/min with irrigation pressure of 75 mmHg and suction bar 0.15. With EASI, settings were for Bettocchi 4 (1.9 mm) and Bettocchi 5 (2.9 mm) scope with 45 mmHg. Hysteroscopies were carried out by an experienced operator trained in office hysteroscopy. All hysteroscopies were done in early proliferative phase (4th-11th day).
main outcome measuresSuccess, failure and complication rates.
resultsHysteroscopies were successfully performed in nearly 98.66% of cases with 4 patients requiring a two-step procedure due to > 3 cm pathology. One thousand eight hundred eight (62.2%) were diagnostic hysteroscopies, while operative hysteroscopies were performed in one thousand one hundred twenty (37.8%). One patient (1/3000) had a vasovagal attack.
conclusionsIn outpatient setting, counselling the patient for office hysteroscopy played an important role to overcome pain and anxiety, in addition to low pressure, continuous flow irrigation and vaginoscopic approach. Traditional resectoscopic surgeries should be reserved for challenging cases (i.e. endometrial ablation) or for certain pathologies (myomas > 2.0 cm, broad-base, large-size polyps). Recent advances in technique and instrumentation facilitate this approach and might encourage greater adoption by the gynaecology community. With the right approach, technique and setup, office hysteroscopy is feasible with favourable outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.