Open Access

Current practice in the removal of benign endometrial polyps: a Dutch survey

  • Lotte J. E. W. van Dijk1Email author,
  • Maria C. Breijer1, 2,
  • Sebastiaan Veersema3,
  • Ben W. J. Mol2 and
  • Anne Timmermans2
Gynecological SurgeryEndoscopic Imaging and Allied Techniques20119:707

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-011-0707-3

Received: 15 August 2011

Accepted: 1 October 2011

Published: 19 October 2011

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current practice of Dutch gynecologists in the removal of benign endometrial polyps and compare these results with the results of a previous study from 2003. In 2009 Dutch gynecologists were surveyed by a mailed questionnaire about polypectomy. Gynecologists answered questions about their individual performance of polypectomy: setting, form of anesthesia, method, and instrument use. The results were compared with the results from the previous survey. The response rate was 70% (585 of 837 gynecologists). Among the respondents, 455 (78%) stated to remove endometrial polyps themselves. Polyps were mostly removed in an inpatient setting (337; 74%) under general or regional anesthesia (247; 54%) and under direct hysteroscopic vision (411; 91%). Gynecologists working in a teaching hospital removed polyps more often in an outpatient setting compared with gynecologists working in a nonteaching hospital [118 (43%) vs. 35 (19%) p < 0.001]. These results are in accordance with the results from 2003. Compared to 2003 there was an increase in the number of gynecologists performing polypectomies with local or no anesthesia [211 (46%) vs. 98 (22%), p < 0.001]. An increase was also noted in the number of gynecologists using direct hysteroscopic vision [411 (91%) vs. 290 (64%), p < 0.001] and 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments [181 (44%) vs. 56 (19%), p < 0.001]. Compared to the situation in 2003, there is an increase in removal under direct hysteroscopic vision, with 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments, using local or no anesthesia. This implies there is progress in outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in the Netherlands.

Keywords

Polypectomy Hysteroscopy Inpatient Outpatient

Background

Benign endometrial polyps are frequently associated with abnormal uterine bleeding [14]. Endometrial polyps have a low potential for (pre)malignancy. However age and postmenopausal bleeding are factors which are associated with malignancy [3, 57]. Most gynecologists (up to 93%) will remove endometrial polyps in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding symptoms [8]. Although case series, cohort studies, and retrospective studies on this subject exist, few studies address this question prospectively in a comparative cohort study or a randomized controlled trial [9, 10]. Removing endometrial polyps is thought to improve symptoms of abnormal uterine bleeding and increase satisfaction rate in women with endometrial polyps [11, 12]. The evidence that justifies the removal of endometrial polyps however is limited.

Traditionally, endometrial polyps were removed by dilatation and curettage (D&C). However, in approximately 57% of the D&C procedures endometrial polyps are not detected and D&C fails to extract endometrial polyps in 60–87% of the cases [13, 14]. Former surveys have demonstrated that D&C for polyp removal has not been completely abandoned: 2% of gynecologists in the UK removed polyps with D&C and 56% removed polyps with D&C following hysteroscopy [8]. In 2003, in the Netherlands, 4% of the gynecologists removed polyps with D&C and 27% used D&C following hysteroscopic localization. The preferred method of Dutch gynecologists is hysteroscopic removal (69%) [15]. Moreover, hysteroscopic polypectomy is the most performed hysteroscopic procedure in the Netherlands [16].

Large prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that outpatient hysteroscopy and polypectomy are feasible, safe, and effective with high patient satisfaction rates [1723]. Compared to the inpatient setting, patients treated in the outpatient setting recover faster, leading to a decrease in time away from home and work [24]. Nevertheless, our previous study revealed that in 2003, outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in the Netherlands was not practiced on a large scale (29% of gynecologists). However, we saw that outpatient hysteroscopic polyp removal was more often practiced in teaching hospitals compared with nonteaching hospitals. We therefore hypothesized that there might be a tendency towards outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy. To evaluate this hypothesis, we conducted the current survey.

Materials and methods

All practicing gynecologists, holding membership of the Dutch association of obstetrics and gynecology (NVOG), in 2009 were identified from the national database. Gynecologists in training were not included. All gynecologists were approached by mail and received a questionnaire with a cover letter and prepaid return envelope. Different criteria were met to achieve the best response rate: the questionnaire was brief, fitting on one page; was explicit; and had a structured format consisting of three items subdivided in closed questions. To assure a higher response rate, a reminder was sent to the nonresponders after 8 weeks and a second reminder was sent by mail and email after another 12 weeks.

The questionnaire concerned questions about the medical practice of gynecologists, when a benign polyp was suspected following ultrasound or endometrial biopsy. Recipients were asked in what type of hospital they were working: a teaching hospital, with a residency program for gynecology, or a nonteaching hospital. Subsequently, gynecologists were asked to report whether they performed endometrial polypectomy themselves. Only those who did were then requested to report about setting (inpatient, day care, outpatient), form of anesthesia (general, regional, local or none), method of polyp removal (D&C, D&C after hysteroscopic localization or under direct hysteroscopic visualization), and type of hysteroscopic instrument used (5 Fr mechanical instruments, 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments, resectoscope, or morcellator).

Respondents were asked to report whether they performed the different modalities as a standard method, incidentally or never at all. The options that were chosen as a standard were used for further analysis. It was possible to leave questions unanswered or give multiple answers to one question (e.g., general and regional anesthesia as a standard method).

An inpatient setting was considered an operating theater with an anesthesiologist present for general or regional anesthesia and at least one night stay in the hospital. A day care setting was considered an operating theater with an anesthesiologist present, but discharge from the hospital the same day. A “walk-in-walk-out” procedure, without the presence of an anesthesiologist and without hospital admission, was considered an outpatient setting. Since the inpatient setting and day care setting both require hospital admission and use of an operating theater, they were analyzed together as one category. The same was applied to the form of anesthesia: general and regional anesthesia both require an anesthesiologist and were analyzed as one category. Local anesthesia is administered by a gynecologist and was therefore analyzed together with no anesthesia as one category. These categories enabled comparison of the current results with the results from 2003.

Statistical analysis

All data were processed anonymously. The information was collected, and descriptive statistical analyses were performed with SPSS for Windows® Release 15.0 Standard Version (Chicago, IL, USA). Answers given by gynecologists working in teaching hospitals were compared to answers given by gynecologists working in nonteaching hospitals. The data from this study were also compared to the data from our survey conducted in 2003 [15]. The chi-square test was used to compare proportions. Differences between groups were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. All p values were two sided.

Findings

In 2009 a total of 837 gynecologists were registered in the Netherlands. After the first mailing, 409 questionnaires were returned. Another 87 gynecologists responded after the first reminder. A second reminder was sent, with a response of 89. In total a number of 585 (70%) gynecologists participated. Not all respondents answered all items of the questionnaire. Therefore subcalculations with different denominators were made.

Current practice

Of the 585 participating gynecologists, 455 (78%) performed polypectomy for endometrial polyps themselves. Table 1 shows the current practice of removing endometrial polyps. An inpatient or day care setting was used routinely by 337 (74%) gynecologists, with general or regional anesthesia by 247 (54%) gynecologists. Removal under direct hysteroscopic vision was the most used method of polypectomy, used by 411 (91%) respondents. Removal under direct hysteroscopic visualization was practiced routinely with 5 Fr mechanical instruments, 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments, or resectoscope by 166 (40%), 181 (44%), and 174 (42%) respondents, respectively.
Table 1

Current practice in 2009 concerning removal of endometrial polyps

 

Total

Teaching (n = 275)

Nonteaching (n = 180)

p value

Setting

-Inpatient/day care

337 (74)

193 (70)

144 (80)

0.019

-Outpatient

153 (34)

118 (43)

35 (19)

<0.001

Anesthesia

-General/regional

247 (54)

133 (48)

114 (63)

0.002

-Local/no

211 (46)

152 (55)

59 (33)

<0.001

Method

-D&C

6 (1)

2 (1)

4 (2)

ns

-D&C after hysteroscopy

37 (8)

15 (6)

22 (12)

0.010

-Direct hysteroscopic vision

411 (91)

257 (94)

154 (86)

0.005

 

Hysteroscopic vision

n = 411

n = 257

n = 154

 

Instrument

-5 Fr mechanical

166 (40)

102 (40)

64 (42)

ns

-5 Fr electrosurgical

181 (44)

122 (47)

59 (38)

ns

-Resectoscope

174 (42)

106 (41)

68 (44)

ns

-Morcellator

12 (3)

10 (4)

2 (1)

ns

Number of performing gynecologists (in percent)

Teaching academic and nonacademic teaching hospitals, D&C dilatation and curettage, ns not significant

Outpatient polypectomy was carried out by 153 (34%) of the respondents, and 211 (46%) used local or no anesthesia. Separating this last group, it shows that 76 gynecologists (17%) used local anesthesia vs. 145 (32%) no anesthesia (p < 0.001). Table 2 shows the method of polyp removal vs. form of anesthesia. In case of D&C after hysteroscopic localization, more gynecologists used general or regional anesthesia than local or no anesthesia (13% vs. 1%, p < 0.001).
Table 2

Method of polyp removal versus form of anesthesia

 

General/regional anesthesia

Local/no anesthesia

p value

D&C

3 (1)

1 (1)

ns

D&C following hysteroscopy

32 (13)

3 (1)

<0.001

Under direct hysteroscopic vision

214 (86)

206 (98)

ns

Total

249

210

 

Number of gynecologists (in percent)

D&C dilatation and curettage, ns not significant

Teaching vs. nonteaching hospitals

In teaching hospitals, gynecologists removed polyps significantly more in an outpatient setting compared with gynecologists in nonteaching hospitals (43% vs. 19%, p < 0.001; Table 1). Local or no anesthesia was more often used in teaching hospitals compared with nonteaching hospitals (55% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Direct hysteroscopic vision was the most common method of polypectomy in both types of hospitals.

Comparison with practice in 2003

In 2003 and in 2009, an equal number of gynecologists (455) reported to remove endometrial polyps themselves. These results turned out this way by chance. In both years the majority of Dutch gynecologists performed polypectomy in an inpatient setting under general or regional anesthesia (Table 3). Though, significantly less general or regional anesthesia (54% vs. 72%, p < 0.001) and more local or no anesthesia (46% vs. 22%, p < 0.001) is used in 2009 compared with 2003. This applies both for teaching and nonteaching hospitals (numbers not shown separately). In 2009, 145 gynecologists (32%) used no anesthesia vs. 21 (5%) in 2003 (p < 0.001). A shift towards the removal under direct hysteroscopic vision is seen in 2009 compared with 2003 (91% vs. 64%, p < 0.001), with a decrease in use of D&C (9% vs. 29%, p < 0.001). The 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments are more frequently used in 2009 compared with 2003 (44% vs. 19%, p < 0.001).
Table 3

Comparison numbers of 2009 with 2003

 

Total 2009, n = 455

Total 2003, n = 455

p value

Setting

-Inpatient/day care

337 (74)

321 (71)

ns

-Outpatient

153 (34)

129 (28)

ns

Anesthesia

-General/regional

247 (54)

326 (72)

<0.001

-Local/no

211 (46)

98 (22)

<0.001

Method

-D&C

6 (1)

17 (4)

0.03

-D&C after hysteroscopy

37 (8)

115 (25)

<0.001

-Direct hysteroscopic vision

411 (91)

290 (64)

<0.001

 

Hysteroscopic vision

2009, n = 411

2003, n = 290

 

Instrument

-5 Fr mechanical

166 (40)

197 (68)

<0.001

-5 Fr electrosurgical

181 (44)

56 (19)

<0.001

-Resectoscope

174 (42)

159 (55)

0.001

-Morcellator

12 (3)

na

na

D&C dilatation and curettage, ns not significant, na not applicable, Teaching academic and nonacademic teaching hospitals

Discussion

Our survey shows that the majority of gynecologists in the Netherlands remove endometrial polyps in an inpatient setting, under direct hysteroscopic vision. More gynecologists in teaching hospitals perform polypectomy in an outpatient setting compared with nonteaching hospitals. Comparing current practice to the situation in 2003, we found an increase in hysteroscopic polyp removal with a decrease in D&C removal. Furthermore, we noted a decrease in the use of general or regional anesthesia and an increase in the number of gynecologists performing hysteroscopy with local or no anesthesia; no difference in the use of outpatient setting was noted. We also found an increase in the number of gynecologists using 5 French electrosurgical instruments.

There are two limitations that need to be addressed regarding the present study. First, our response rate is marginal. Our results should however be considered valid as a response rate of 70% is a level where the impact of nonresponse bias is negligible [25]. Moreover, the questionnaires were concise and met different criteria to achieve the best response rate. We met these criteria by using a short one-page questionnaire with return envelopes and reminders [26, 27].

The second limitation concerns the fact that we only considered the number of gynecologists removing polyps, and we did not display the number of polypectomies they performed. This could mean that few gynecologists perform polypectomies in an outpatient setting, but the major part of the number of polypectomies in the Netherlands (by a minor group of gynecologists) is performed outpatient. To get an impression of the number of uterine polypectomies per year, we sent all departments of gynecology in the Netherlands a letter and asked for the annual report of their department. However, the annual reports of the various hospitals differed in layout and classification. Some hospitals classified their therapeutic hysteroscopies in subcategories like hysteroscopic polypectomy, while others grouped them under the same denominator, without separation in numbers of polypectomies. We could therefore not include this information in our current survey.

In 2003 we hypothesized a tendency towards outpatient hysteroscopic removal of polyps for the future. Although we could not show such an increase directly in the number of gynecologists performing outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy, our results imply that there is a tendency towards outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy. We found an increase in the number of gynecologists performing polypectomy under direct hysteroscopic vision with local or no anesthesia and a decrease in D&C after hysteroscopy and the use of general or regional anesthesia. Considering the fact that an increase in local and no anesthesia was observed, it can only be concluded that more gynecologists are performing hysteroscopy as a “walk-in-walk-out” office procedure.

Hysteroscopic polypectomy seems to be integrated in the daily practice of most hospitals in the Netherlands [16]. Possible explanations for the shift towards outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy can be mentioned on a speculative basis. First, the Dutch obstetrics and gynecology residency curriculum requires hysteroscopic polypectomy for graduation. The curriculum includes a basic surgical skill course with additionally the possibility to attend advanced courses and congresses on hysteroscopy. Each year many residents and gynecologists participate in these courses, which enhance the implementation of basic minimally invasive surgery skills training into the residency curriculum [28, 29]. Second, in 2002 hysteroscopic sterilization was introduced in the Netherlands. This technique was set in a “see-and-treat” setting with the use of 5 Fr working channel instruments. The use of this technique has probably had a positive influence on implementation of outpatient hysteroscopy for other indications. Third, literature shows that outpatient hysteroscopy is the most cost-effective method of hysteroscopy [24].

This progress in outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in the Netherlands is an advantage in medical practice. Literature shows that the best method of pain control for women undergoing traditional hysteroscopy is local anesthesia [30, 31]. However, a recent systematic review reported less pain during hysteroscopy in case of vaginoscopic approach (no anesthesia) compared with traditional hysteroscopic techniques, even with use of local anesthesia [32]. We showed a significant increase in the number of gynecologists using no anesthesia in 2009 compared with 2003. This makes the vaginoscopic approach of hysteroscopy more favorable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study shows that although hysteroscopy without anesthesia [32] and outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy [19, 2123] have been described in the literature to be highly successful, it is still not practiced on a large scale in the Netherlands. However, there is progress in outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy. This implies that daily practice is catching up with the situation described in the literature.

Declarations

Acknowledgment

We thank all gynecologists, who completed the questionnaire, for their cooperation.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, TweeSteden Hospital
(2)
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Academic Medical Center
(3)
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, St. Antonius Hospital

References

  1. Karlsson B, Granberg S, Wikland M, Ylostalo P, Torvid K, Marsal K, Valentin L (1995) Transvaginal ultrasonography of the endometrium in women with postmenopausal bleeding—a Nordic multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172(5):1488–1494PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. O’Connell LP, Fries MH, Zeringue E, Brehm W (1998) Triage of abnormal postmenopausal bleeding: a comparison of endometrial biopsy and transvaginal sonohysterography versus fractional curettage with hysteroscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178(5):956–961PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Domingues AP, Lopes H, Dias I, Oliveira CF (2009) Endometrial polyps in postmenopausal women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 88(5):618–620PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Gale A, Dey P (2009) Postmenopausal bleeding. Menopause Int 15(4):160–164PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Kassab A, Trotter P, Fox R (2008) Risk of cancer in symptomatic postmenopausal women with endometrial polyps at scan. J Obstet Gynaecol 28(5):522–525PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferrazzi E, Zupi E, Leone FP, Savelli L, Omodei U, Moscarini M, Barbieri M, Cammareri G, Capobianco G, Cicinelli E, Coccia ME, Donarini G, Fiore S, Litta P, Sideri M, Solima E, Spazzini D, Testa AC, Vignali M (2009) How often are endometrial polyps malignant in asymptomatic postmenopausal women? A multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(3):235–236PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Golan A, Cohen-Sahar B, Keidar R, Condrea A, Ginath S, Sagiv R (2010) Endometrial polyps: symptomatology, menopausal status and malignancy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 70(2):107–112PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark TJ, Khan KS, Gupta JK (2002) Current practice for the treatment of benign intrauterine polyps: a national questionnaire survey of consultant gynaecologists in UK. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 103(1):65–67PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Timmermans A, Veersema S, van Kerkvoorde TC, van der Voet LF, Opmeer BC, Bongers MY, Mol BW (2009) Should endometrial polyps be removed in patients with postmenopausal bleeding?—an assessment of study designs and report of a failed randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN73825127). BJOG 116(10):1391–1395PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Lieng M, Istre O, Sandvik L, Engh V, Qvigstad E (2010) Clinical effectiveness of transcervical polyp resection in women with endometrial polyps: randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(3):351–357PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Nathani F, Clark TJ (2006) Uterine polypectomy in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13(4):260–268PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Lieng M, Istre O, Qvigstad E (2010) Treatment of endometrial polyps: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89(8):992–1002PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Epstein E, Ramirez A, Skoog L, Valentin L (2001) Dilatation and curettage fails to detect most focal lesions in the uterine cavity in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80(12):1131–1136PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Gebauer G, Hafner A, Siebzehnrubl E, Lang N (2001) Role of hysteroscopy in detection and extraction of endometrial polyps: results of a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(2):59–63PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Timmermans A, van Dongen H, Mol BW, Veersema S, Jansen FW (2008) Hysteroscopy and removal of endometrial polyps: a Dutch survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 138(1):76–79PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. van Dongen H, Kolkman W, Jansen FW (2007) Implementation of hysteroscopic surgery in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 132(2):232–236PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Bettocchi S, Nappi L, Ceci O, Selvaggi L (2004) Office hysteroscopy. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 31(3):641–654, xiView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Garuti G, Cellani F, Colonnelli M, Grossi F, Luerti M (2004) Outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in 237 patients: feasibility of a one-stop “see-and-treat” procedure. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(4):500–504PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Marsh FA, Rogerson LJ, Duffy SR (2006) A randomised controlled trial comparing outpatient versus daycase endometrial polypectomy. BJOG 113(8):896–901PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghaly S, de Abreu LR, Abbott JA (2008) Audit of endometrial biopsy at outpatient hysteroscopy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 48(2):202–206PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Litta P, Cosmi E, Saccardi C, Esposito C, Rui R, Ambrosini G (2008) Outpatient operative polypectomy using a 5 mm-hysteroscope without anaesthesia and/or analgesia: advantages and limits. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 139(2):210–214PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Siristatidis C, Chrelias C (2010) Feasibility of office hysteroscopy through the “see and treat technique” in private practice: a prospective observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283(4):819–823PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Di Spiezio SA, Bettocchi S, Spinelli M, Guida M, Nappi L, Angioni S, Sosa Fernandez LM, Nappi C (2010) Review of new office-based hysteroscopic procedures 2003–2009. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):436–448View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Saridogan E, Tilden D, Sykes D, Davis N, Subramanian D (2010) Cost-analysis comparison of outpatient see-and-treat hysteroscopy service with other hysteroscopy service models. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):518–525PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Lydeards S (1996) Commentary: avoid surveys masquerading as research. BMJ 313:733–734View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R (2007) Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:MR000008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL (2007) Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof 30(4):303–321PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Hiemstra E, Kolkman W, Jansen FW (2008) Skills training in minimally invasive surgery in Dutch obstetrics and gynecology residency curriculum. Gynecol Surg 5(4):321–325PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. van Dongen H, Emanuel MH, Wolterbeek R, Trimbos JB, Jansen FW (2008) Hysteroscopic morcellator for removal of intrauterine polyps and myomas: a randomized controlled pilot study among residents in training. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(4):466–471PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Ahmad G, Attarbashi S, O'Flynn H, Watson AJ (2011) Pain relief in office gynaecology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 155(1):3–13PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Cooper NA, Khan KS, Clark TJ (2010) Local anaesthesia for pain control during outpatient hysteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 340:c1130PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Cooper NA, Smith P, Khan KS, Clark TJ (2010) Vaginoscopic approach to outpatient hysteroscopy: a systematic review of the effect on pain. BJOG 117(5):532–539PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2011

Advertisement