Hysteroscopic Evaluation Of Menorrhagia And Its Correlation With Saline Infusion Sonography
Hysteroscopic Evaluation Of Menorrhagia And Its Correlation With Saline Infusion Sonography
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v7i6.1390Keywords:
Menorrhagia, saline infusion sonography (SIS), hysteroscopyAbstract
Background: In India Menorrhagia is becoming an increasingly frequent problem of women seeking gynaec consultation and has become a major reason for hysterectomy without any uterine pathology. Woman work 2/3rd of world's working hours and produce 1/2 of world’s food and earn 10% of world’s income but menorrhagia leads to loss of working hours significantly hence to treat properly a correct diagnosis is a must. Aim: The purpose of this study is to know best way of diagnosis cause of menorrhagia with minimum invasion and more accuracy1. Method: A prospective observational study on 97 women attending gynaec OPD in R.D. Gardi Medical College between 01-09-2011 to 01-03-2013 was done. Complete clinical examination with saline infusion sonography and hysteroscopy was done in each patient here we compare results of two diagnostic methods. Result: Out of 97 patients (n=97), by Hysteroscopy 44% had normal findings and 55.6% had abnormal findings. Out of 97 patients (n=97), by SIS 42% had normal findings and 57.7% had abnormal findings. Conclusion: (Saline infusion sonography) SIS an easy diagnostic modality being widely available, can be used in the same sitting of ultrasound scan of the pelvis and if a structural lesion is detected plan for definitive management may be taken early in a poor country like India. Hysteroscopy is the gold standard in evaluation of AUB and besides diagnostic accuracy offers definitive management in cases like small endometrial polyp, sepsis, small fibroid, indometrial hyperplasia. [Neelam T NJIRM 2016; 7(6):40-44]
References
2. Malcolm G. Munro, Hilary O.D. Crithcley, Ian S. Fraser, for the FIGO Working Group on Menstrual Disorders; The FIGO classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding; International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 113 (2011) 1–2
3. Pantaleoni D. On endoscopic examination of the cavity of the womb. Med Press Circ 1869;8: 26
4. Widrich T, Bradley LD, Mitchinson AR, Collins RL., Comparison of saline infusion sonography with office hysteroscopy for the evaluation of endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1327-34.
5. Daveyda:Dysfunctional uterine bleeding : In Dewhurst’s text book of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology for post graduates. Edn 6 Blackwell Science;1995. P 590-608.
6. J. L. Engstrom, R. Rose, A. I. Brill, K.M. Polhill, C.M. Lukanich, and L. Fritz, “Midwifery care of the woman with menorrhagia,†Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, vol.44, no.2,pp.89–105, 1999.
7. Baggish MS. Operative Hysteroscopy. In: Rock JA, Jones HW III, editors. TeLinde’s Operative Gynecology 9th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003. p. 379-411.
8. Elvire Jacques MD, Usha verma MD and R.W. Whitted, Accuracy of Saline infusion sonohysterography versus TVS in detecting intra cavitary uterine pathology. Obstetric and Gynecology 2001 Apr ; 97(4) : S18.
9. Ruth B.Goldstein MD , Saline Infusion sonohysterography. Ultrasound Clinics- 2006 Apr; 1 (2): 385-414.
10. Lindemann HJ. One Hundred years of Hysteroscopy: 1869-1969. In: Siegler AM, Lindemann HJ, editors. Hysteroscopy: Principles and Practice. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1984. p.128-131.
11. Saidi MH, Sadler RK, Theis VD, Akright BD, Farhart SA, Villanneva Gg. “Comparison of sonography, sonohysterography and hysteroscopy for evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding†. Journal Ultrasound Med 1997; 16:587-91.12.
12. Cincinelli E, Romano F, An astasio PS, Blasi N, Prisi C. “ Sonohysterography versus steroscopy in the diagnosis of endouterine polypsâ€, Gynaecology Obstetrics invest, 1994, 38:266-71
