Conscious sedation for office hysteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

De Silva, Prathiba M, Carnegy, Alasdair, Graham, Christopher, Smith, Paul P and Clark, T Justin (2021) Conscious sedation for office hysteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, 266. pp. 89-98. ISSN 1872-7654.

Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL:



To evaluate the role of conscious sedation on pain control in office hysteroscopy.


MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched from inception to the 30th October 2020 in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials investigating women undergoing office hysteroscopic procedures, allocated to either conscious sedation or a suitable comparator, where the outcome was pain. Data regarding adverse events, feasibility and satisfaction/acceptability were also collected. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess study quality. Standard mean differences (SMD) or Odds Ratios (OR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous (e.g. mean pain) and dichotomous (e.g. side-effects) outcomes, respectively.


The literature search returned 339 results, of which seven studies were included for systematic review, with five studies having data suitable for meta-analysis. Intravenous conscious sedation, when compared with local anesthesia, reduced pain during (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01), but not after (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.07) office hysteroscopy. No significant difference in side-effects were noted (OR 15.58, 95% CI 0.08 to 2891.91). Intravenous conscious sedation, when compared to an oral analgesic and antispasmodic, was associated with increased pain, both during (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.49) and after (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.93) hysteroscopy and had significantly more side-effects (OR 134.33, 95% CI 16.14 to 1118.17). Inhalational conscious sedation (70% NO/30% O), when compared to oral analgesia and anxiolysis, showed the greatest reduction in pain during hysteroscopy (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.52), however side-effects were not reported. Whilst patients and hysteroscopists were more satisfied with deeper levels of sedation, resulting side-effects, such as delirium, increased the level of post-procedural attention required, leading to a significantly lower level of satisfaction amongst nursing staff.


The routine use of conscious sedation in contemporary hysteroscopic practice should be avoided in the absence of any clear reduction in pain and a higher risk of side-effects.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: WO Surgery > WO500 Anaesthesia
Divisions: Womens and Childrens > Gynaecology
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Jamie Edgar
Date Deposited: 08 Oct 2021 14:59
Last Modified: 08 Oct 2021 14:59

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item