RESUMO
Background: Tubal pathology is the etiological factor in 20% of couples with female infertility. Historically, diagnostic evaluation of the fallopian tubes has been performed by means of hysterosalpingography (HSG). Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam is a recent technique with supposedly comparable effectiveness to HSG, but with better tolerability for patients. Methods: Tubal patency was assessed in patients who were candidates for intrauterine insemination (IUI) between January 2020 and July 2021. (I) Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam. (II) If the patient had both tubes patent, IUI was proposed. In case of inconclusive or pathological results, HSG was performed. (III) If the HSG concludes tubal patency, IUI is proposed. On the other hand, if it results in tubal obstruction, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is proposed. Results: Assessment of tubal patency by HSG showed concordance with previous Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam results in 45.5% (n=15) of cases of unilateral obstruction and 66.7% (n=6) of cases of bilateral obstruction. When we compare the total cost of HSG (54,899.46) with the sum of patients who only required Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam together with those who underwent both tests (45,575.96), it shows that the latter represents a cost benefit strategy (cost difference 9,323.50). Conclusions: Our results suggest a benefit of 9,323.50 when performing the contingent sequential strategy, in case of pathological or inconclusive results, compared to performing a systematic HSG in all patients. Patients with an obstructive hysterosalpingogram with EXEM® and a patent hysterosalpingogram will be the subgroup that will benefit the most, as IUI can be proposed instead of IVF. In addition, there is a benefit in terms of optimizing the medical procedure, hospital visits and speeding up the time to start assisted reproductive technology (ART).
RESUMO
OBJETIVO: Determinar si la ansiedad preoperatoria supone un factor de riesgo independiente para la percepción de dolor severo durante la realización de una histeroscopia quirúrgica ambulatoria. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio de cohortes en el que incluimos179 pacientes. Se ha aplicado el formulario STAI-S para valorar la ansiedad preoperatoria de las pacientes y distribuirlas en dos cohortes: Pacientes con ansiedad (STAI-S >50) y pacientes sin ansiedad (STAI-S7. Se ha calculado la asociación y el riesgo entre ambas variables mediante el Test X2 y el Riesgo Relativo (RR). Se ha utilizado el test de correlación de Pearson para valorar la correlación entre ambas variables. Se ha considerado estadísticamente significativo un valor de p<0.05. RESULTADOS: Las pacientes que percibieron dolor severo durante la entrada a la cavidad uterina (78,3% vs 29,5%; p<0,001) y durante la realización del proceso quirúrgico (78,8% vs 26,2%; p<0,001) fueron en su mayoría pacientes con ansiedad preoperatoria. El RR de las pacientes con ansiedad para percibir dolor severo es de 6,46 (IC 95%; 2,52 -16,60) durante la entrada y de 6,61 (IC 95%; 3,04 -14,38) durante la resección. Existe una correlación moderada y positiva entre las puntuaciones obtenida en la escala STAI-S y la puntuación EVA, tanto durante la entrada a la cavidad (r = 0,629; p = 0,042) como durante el proceso quirúrgico (r = 0'661; p =0'021). CONCLUSIONES: Las pacientes con ansiedad preoperatoria tienen más riesgo de percibir dolor severo durante la entrada en la cavidad uterina y durante la realización de la intervención histeroscópica.
OBJECTIVE: Determine if preprocedural anxiety is an independent risk factor for the perception of severe pain during an outpatient surgical hysteroscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: There were 179 patients included in this cohort study. The STAI-S questionnaire has been applied to assess the preoperative anxiety of the patients and distribute them into two cohorts: Patients with anxiety (STAI-S>50) and patients without anxiety (STAI-S 7. The association and the risk between both variables have been calculated using X2 test and relative risk (RR). Pearson's correlation test was used to assess the correlation between both variables. A p value < 0,05 has been considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Patients who perceived severe pain during access to the uterine cavity (78,3% vs 29,5%; p<0,001) and during the surgical procedure (78,8% vs 26,2%; p<0,001) were mostly patients with preoperative anxiety. The RR of patients with anxiety to perceive severe pain is 6.46 (95% CI; 2,52-16,60) during access to the uterine cavity and 6,61 (95% CI; 3,04-14,38) during resection. We have found a moderate and positive correlation between the scores obtained on the STAI-S questionnaire and VAS score during access to the uterine cavity (r=0,629; p=0,042) and during the surgical process (r=0,661; p=0,021) CONCLUSIONS: Patients with preprocedural anxiety are more at risk of perceiving severe pain during access into the uterine cavity and during the hysteroscopic intervention.