Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKarakus, Savas
dc.contributor.authorAkkar, Ozlem Bozoklu
dc.contributor.authorYildiz, Caglar
dc.contributor.authorYenicesu, Gonca Imir
dc.contributor.authorCetin, Meral
dc.contributor.authorCetin, Ali
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-28T09:47:03Z
dc.date.available2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-07-28T09:47:03Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn1553-4650
dc.identifier.issn1553-4669
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.006
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/7618
dc.descriptionWOS: 000368301700009en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 26272687en_US
dc.description.abstractStudy Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intracervical laminaria dilator versus intravaginal misoprostol administered before surgery to facilitate cervical dilation before operative hysteroscopy. Design: A prospective randomized study (Canadian Task Force classification 1). Setting: A university hospital. Patients: A total of 150 women were assigned at random to the following groups: laminaria dilation (n = 50), misoprostol dilation (n = 50), and mechanical dilation (n = 50). Interventions: Hysteroscopic surgery of intrauterine lesions. Measurements and Main Results: In this study, 150 women were assigned at random to receive cervical priming with an intracervical laminaria dilator, 200 mu g of intravaginal misoprostol, or a mechanical dilator before operative hysteroscopy. Cervical response, surgical outcome, and complications of operative hysteroscopy were assessed. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were recorded in the misoprostol and laminaria dilation groups. Demographic variables of the study groups were comparable (p = .278.988). The duration of cervical pretreatment was similar with the intracervical larminaria dilator and intravaginal misoprostol (p = .803); however, intravaginal misoprostol was associated with more adverse effects (p = .031). Compared with the misoprostol dilation group, in which all patients required additional cervical dilation, notably fewer patients in the laminaria dilation group required additional cervical dilation after cervical preparation (p = .001). VAS pain scores were significantly higher in the laminaria dilation group, however (p = .001). Conclusion: Cervical priming with an intracervical laminaria dilator before operative hysteroscopy reduces the need for cervical dilation and better facilitates hysteroscopic surgery compared with intravaginal misoprostol. Oral analgesic use may be required before the use of this device. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (C) 2016 AAGL. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCIENCE INCen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.006en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectCervical dilationen_US
dc.subjectLaminaria dilatoren_US
dc.subjectMechanical dilationen_US
dc.subjectMisoprostolen_US
dc.subjectOperative hysteroscopyen_US
dc.titleComparison of Effectiveness of Laminaria versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Cervical Preparation Before Operative Hysteroscopy in Women of Reproductive Age: A Prospective Randomized Trialen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalJOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGYen_US
dc.contributor.department[Karakus, Savas -- Akkar, Ozlem Bozoklu -- Yildiz, Caglar -- Yenicesu, Gonca Imir -- Cetin, Meral -- Cetin, Ali] Cumhuriyet Univ, Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, TR-58140 Sivas, Turkeyen_US
dc.contributor.authorIDCetin, Ali -- 0000-0002-5767-7894en_US
dc.identifier.volume23en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.endpage52en_US
dc.identifier.startpage46en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record