Evaluation of pain in three hysterosalpingography techniques: Metal cannula with and without paracervical blockage and balloon catheter

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 187, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 86-89

  De Mello Sr , João F L ^a   Abrao, Maurício S ^a   Cerri, Giovanni G ^a   De Barros, Nestor ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Balloon catheter; Hysterosalpingography; Infertility; Metal cannula; Pain management; Paracervical blockage; Pelvic imaging

Indexed keywords

METAL; CONTRAST MEDIUM; LIDOCAINE; LOCAL ANESTHETIC AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BALLOON; BALLOON CATHETER; BRAZIL; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAIN; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PARACERVICAL BLOCK; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCORING SYSTEM; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; ADOLESCENT; BALLOON DILATATION; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NERVE BLOCK;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANESTHETICS, LOCAL; BALLOON DILATATION; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; LIDOCAINE; METALS; MIDDLE AGED; NERVE BLOCK; PAIN MEASUREMENT;

EID: 33747107494     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0392     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Yoder, IC. Hysterosalpingography and pelvic ultrasound: imaging in infertility and gynecology, 1st ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1988:1
2. Brown SE, Coddington CC, Schnorr J. Evaluation of outpatient hysteroscopy, saline infusion hysterosonography and hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril 2000; 74:1029-1034
3. Session DR, Lee GS, Kelly AC. A comparison of pain tolerance during X-ray hysterosalpingography and sonohysterosalpingography. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1997; 43:116-119
4. Cicinelli E, Matteo M, Causio F, Schonauer LM, Pinto V, Galantino P. Tolerability of the mini-pan-endoscopic approach (transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy and minihysteroscopy) versus hysterosalpingography in an outpatient infertility investigation. Fertil Steril 2001; 76:1048-1051
5. Tur-Kaspa I. Hysterosalpingography with aballoon catheter versus a metal cannula: a prospective, randomized, blinded comparative study. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:75-77
6. Cohen SB, Wattiez A, Seidman DS, et al. Comparison of cervical vacuum cup cannula with metal cannula for hysterosalpingography. BJOG 2001; 108:1031-1035
7. Sholkoff SD. Balloon hysterosalpingography catheter. AJR 1987; 149:995-996
8. Yoder IC. Balloon catheter hysterosalpingography. AJR 1979; 133:335-336
9. Wiebe ER. Comparison of the efficacy of different local anesthetics and techniques of local anesthesia in therapeutic abortions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167:131-134
10. Ezeh UO. Outpatient hysteroscopy: paracervical block. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:221-222
11. Rosen MA. Paracervical block for labor analgesia: a brief historic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186(5 Suppl Nature):S127-S130
12. Huskisson EC. Measurements of pain. Lancet 1974; 2:1127-1131
13. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent, 1986
14. Glatstein IZ, Harlow BS, Hornstein MD. Practice patterns among reproductive endocrinologists: the infertility evaluation. Fertil Steril 1997; 67:443-451
15. Pimenta CA. Cultural concepts and the pain experience [in Portuguese]. Rev Esc Enferm USP 1998; 32(2):179-186
16. Varpula M. Hysterosalpingography with a balloon catheter versus a cannula: evaluation of patient pain. Radiology 1989; 172:745-747