Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (Jan 2010)
Avaliação da dor em histeroscopia ambulatorial: comparação entre duas técnicas Pain evaluation in office hysteroscopy: comparison of two techniques
Abstract
OBJETIVO: comparar a dor referida pelas pacientes submetidas à histeroscopia pela técnica convencional com gás carbônico (CO2) e a vaginohisteroscopia com soro fisiológico (SF 0,9%). MÉTODOS: estudo prospectivo de coorte, realizado em um serviço de histeroscopia ambulatorial. Foram incluídas 117 pacientes com indicação para realizarem o exame, alocadas aleatoriamente em dois grupos. Todas responderam a um questionário epidemiológico e quantificaram a dor esperada antes do exame e sentida após seu término em uma escala verbal de dor de 0 a 10. Para a técnica convencional, foram utilizados espéculo, tração do colo, inserção de ótica de 30º e camisa diagnóstica com diâmetro total 5 mm. A cavidade foi distendida com CO2 sob pressão de 100 mmHg controlada por histeroinsuflador e a biópsia realizada com cureta de Novak. A vaginoscopia foi realizada sem toque, por distensão da vagina com líquido, visualização direta do colo e introdução de ótica com duas camisas de fluxo contínuo com canal acessório de perfil ovalado, totalizando também 5 mm de diâmetro para o conjunto. Foi utilizado SF 0,9% como meio de distensão e a pressão, definida como a necessária para adequada visualização do canal e da cavidade com pressurizador pneumático externo. A biópsia foi realizada de forma dirigida com pinça endoscópica. Foram calculados média e desvio padrão para as variáveis quantitativas e frequência para as qualitativas. O teste t de Student foi utilizado para comparar médias e o teste do qui-quadrado ou exato de Fischer (quando nPURPOSE: to compare the pain reported by patients submitted to hysteroscopy by the standard technique with carbon dioxide (CO2) and to vaginal hysteroscopy with physiological saline (0.9% NaCl). METHODS: this was a prospective cohort study conducted at an ambulatory hysteroscopy service. A total of 117 patients with indication for the exam were included, being randomly assigned to one of the groups. All patients answered an epidemiological questionnaire and scored the pain expected before the exam and that felt after the end of the procedure on a verbal pain scale from 0 to 10. A speculum, traction of the cervix, insertion of a 30º light source and a diagnostic shirt with a total diameter of 5 mm were used for the standard technique. The cavity was distended with CO2 under a pressure of 100 mmHg controlled with a hysteroflator, and a biopsy was obtained with a Novak curette. Vaginoscopy was performed without a touch by distention of the vagina with fluid, direct visualization of the cervix and introduction of the light source with two continuous-flow shirts, with an accessory channel with an oval profile, the whole set measuring 5 mm in diameter. The medium distention was 0.9% NaCl and the pressure used was that considered to be necessary for an adequate visualization of the canal and of the cavity with an external pneumatic pressurizer. The biopsy was obtained in a directed manner using an endoscopic clamp. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for the quantitative variables and the frequency was calculated for the qualitative variables. The Student's t-test was used to compare the means, and the chi-square or exact Fisher test was used (when n<5) for the categorical analysis using the SPSS 15.0 software. The study was designed for a 95% test power, with the level of significance set at p<0.05. RESULTS: the groups were similar regarding age, parity, previous uterine surgeries, menopausal status, and the need for a biopsy. In comparison to the group submitted to the standard technique, the vaginoscopy group involved a lower technical difficulty (5.1 versus 17.2%, p=0.03), a higher rate of exams considered to be satisfactory (98.3 versus 89.7%, p=0.04) and a lower pain index (4.8 versus 6.1; p=0.01), as the difference were more evident when patients who never had a previous normal delivery were compared (4.9 versus 7.1; p=0.0001). When the pain scale was stratified as mild (0-4), moderate (5-7) or intense (8-10), the vaginoscopy technique was found to be associated with a 52% reduction of the frequency of intense pain (p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: vaginohysteroscopy was proved to be a less painful procedure than the technique based on the use of a speculum and CO2, regardless of age, menopause or parity, with more satisfactory results and lower technical difficulty.
Keywords
