MenorrhagiaPhase 3NCT00319410
Comparison of Two Hysteroscopy Approaches
A Phase 3 study testing vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in people with Menorrhagia, run by Wolfson Medical Center at 1 site in Israel.
Trial summary
This randomized clinical trial compares two methods of diagnostic hysteroscopy: vaginoscopic hysteroscopy vs. traditional method. Pain intensity was estimated using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction was evaluated. These endpoints were compared by treatment assignment. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Menorrhagia
- What is being tested?
- vaginoscopic hysteroscopy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 130 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIsrael
- Study dates
- Jul 2005to Dec 2005
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Inclusion Criteria:adult female, referred for outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy, subscriber to Maccabe health maintenance organization -
Exclusion Criteria:heavy vaginal bleeding; severe cervical stenosis; patients refusing the examination on an outpatient basis.
-
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: A New Approach to Office Hysteroscopy Compared With Traditional Hysteroscopy
This randomized clinical trial compares two methods of diagnostic hysteroscopy: vaginoscopic hysteroscopy vs. traditional method. Pain intensity was estimated using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction was evaluated. These endpoints were compared by treatment assignment. Vaginoscopic hysteroscopy was associated with significantly lower VAS scores, indicating reduced experience of pain in this treatment group; however, this was not associated with improved patient satisfaction.
Read the detailed description
OBJECTIVE: To compare the vaginoscopic approach of diagnostic hysteroscopy without anesthesia with the traditional diagnostic hysteroscopy after intracervical injection of Mepivacaine Hydrochloride 3%.
METHODS: A total of 130 women undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy were included in the study and were randomized, using a computer-generated randomization list, into two groups with a ratio of 2:1. Eighty three women underwent vaginoscopy without speculum, tenaculum or anesthesia. Forty seven women received intracervical anesthesia with 10 ml of 3% mepivacaine hydrochloride solution injected at two sites (3:00 and 9:00 positions) and underwent traditional hysteroscopy using a speculum and tenaculum. Hysteroscopy was performed using a rigid 3.7 mm hysteroscope in a medium of 0.9% saline, and the image was transmitted to a screen visible to the patient. A Visual Scale Analogue (VAS) consisting of a 10 cm line was used to assess the intensity of pain experienced during and after the procedure. Overall patient satisfaction was assessed during, immediately after, 15 minutes later, and three days post hysteroscopy.
RESULTS: The mean pain score was significantly lower in the vaginoscopy group (3.8±2.7 vs 5.34±3.23, p=0.01). Patient satisfaction rate was similar in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Patients reported significantly less pain with the vaginoscopic approach to diagnostic hysteroscopy even without anesthesia compared to patients undergoing the traditional procedure with anesthesia. This new approach should therefore be considered as a replacement for the traditional hysteroscopic technique.
- Conditions
- Menorrhagia
- Being tested
- vaginoscopic hysteroscopy
- Keywords
- Menorrhagia, intrauterine diagnosis, visual analogue scale
- Medical subject headings
- Menorrhagia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
vaginoscopic hysteroscopyProcedure or surgery
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Visual analogue scale for pain
Patient satisfaction
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Apr 2006 (estimated)
- Study startJul 2005
- Study completionDec 2005
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for MenorrhagiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 130 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Wolfson Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Investigators
- Ron Sagiv, M.D., Principal investigator, E. Wolfson Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00319410
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EWMCgyn-1
- Status last verified
- Apr 2006
- First submitted
- 27 Apr 2006
- Last updated
- 28 Nov 2006
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Sagiv R, Sadan O, Boaz M, Dishi M, Schechter E, Golan A. A new approach to office hysteroscopy compared with traditional hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Aug;108(2):387-92. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000227750.93984.06.
PubMed 16880310
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Nov 2006. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A New Approach to Office Hysteroscopy Compared With Traditional Hysteroscopy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00319410
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EWMCgyn-1
- Conditions
- Menorrhagia
- Keywords
- Menorrhagia, intrauterine diagnosis, visual analogue scale
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 130 participants
- Lead sponsor
- Wolfson Medical CenterOther government
- Study start
- Jul 2005
- Study completion
- Dec 2005
- First posted
- 27 Apr 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This randomized clinical trial compares two methods of diagnostic hysteroscopy: vaginoscopic hysteroscopy vs. traditional method. Pain intensity was estimated using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction was evaluated. These endpoints were compared by treatment assignment. Vaginoscopic hysteroscopy was associated with significantly lower VAS scores, indicating reduced experience of pain in this treatment group; however, this was not associated with improved patient satisfaction.
Detailed description
OBJECTIVE: To compare the vaginoscopic approach of diagnostic hysteroscopy without anesthesia with the traditional diagnostic hysteroscopy after intracervical injection of Mepivacaine Hydrochloride 3%.
METHODS: A total of 130 women undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy were included in the study and were randomized, using a computer-generated randomization list, into two groups with a ratio of 2:1. Eighty three women underwent vaginoscopy without speculum, tenaculum or anesthesia. Forty seven women received intracervical anesthesia with 10 ml of 3% mepivacaine hydrochloride solution injected at two sites (3:00 and 9:00 positions) and underwent traditional hysteroscopy using a speculum and tenaculum. Hysteroscopy was performed using a rigid 3.7 mm hysteroscope in a medium of 0.9% saline, and the image was transmitted to a screen visible to the patient. A Visual Scale Analogue (VAS) consisting of a 10 cm line was used to assess the intensity of pain experienced during and after the procedure. Overall patient satisfaction was assessed during, immediately after, 15 minutes later, and three days post hysteroscopy.
RESULTS: The mean pain score was significantly lower in the vaginoscopy group (3.8±2.7 vs 5.34±3.23, p=0.01). Patient satisfaction rate was similar in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Patients reported significantly less pain with the vaginoscopic approach to diagnostic hysteroscopy even without anesthesia compared to patients undergoing the traditional procedure with anesthesia. This new approach should therefore be considered as a replacement for the traditional hysteroscopic technique.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
Who may qualify
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| vaginoscopic hysteroscopy | Procedure or surgery | – |
Primary outcome
Visual analogue scale for pain
Patient satisfaction
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Nov 2006.
- Results publication: PubMed 16880310Sagiv R, Sadan O, Boaz M, Dishi M, Schechter E, Golan A. A new approach to office hysteroscopy compared with traditional hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Aug;108(2):387-92. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000227750.93984.06.
Related trials for Menorrhagia
RecruitingObservational study
Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Progestin Treatment in Bleeding Disorders Study
Heavy Menstrual Bleeding, Bleeding Disorder
Recruiting
A Clinical Study of the Aqua Therapeutics Thermal Therapy Vapor Ablation System in Premenopausal Women With Abnormal Uterine Bleeding
Menorrhagia
Not yet recruiting
Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation for Focal Adenomyosis
Adenomyosis, Adenomyoma of Uterus
RecruitingPhase 2
HMBeacon: A Phase 2 Study to Evaluate ALN-6400 in Adult and Adolescent Female Patients With VWD and HMB
Von Willebrand Disease (VWD), Heavy Menstrual Bleeding (HMB)
Recruiting
Delivering tAN to Reduce HMB: The LUNA Study
Heavy Menstrual Bleeding
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Ron Sagiv, M.D. principal investigator
E. Wolfson Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in people with Menorrhagia, run by Wolfson Medical Center at 1 site in Israel.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Nov 2006. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Israel. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Visual analogue scale for pain. The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00319410, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Nov 2006.