Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=100 Randomized Diagnostic

SIS Versus Office Hysteroscopy for Uterine Cavity Evaluation Prior to IVF

Infertility

Enrolled (actual)
100
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Apr 2021
Primary outcome: Primary: Patient Satisfaction — 4.92; 4.84 units on a scale — p=0.57

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Office hysteroscopy (Device)
Age
Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
Female
Sponsor
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Primary completion
Dec 2020

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Patient Satisfaction
4.92; 4.84 0.57
PRIMARY
Pain Scores
3.38; 2.44 <0.01 sig
PRIMARY
Provider Satisfaction
4.76; 4.56 0.11
SECONDARY
Time to Complete
4.61; 3.98 0.16
SECONDARY
Number of Patients Requiring Secondary Procedure
1; 11 < 0.01 sig
SECONDARY
Time to Infertility Treatment
SECONDARY
Positive Predictive Value of SIS
9
SECONDARY
Ability to Manage Pathology With Office Hysteroscopy
16

Summary

Saline infusion sonography (SIS) and hysteroscopy are commonly employed methods for uterine cavity evaluation. While hysteroscopy is regarded as the gold standard for diagnosis of intra-uterine pathology, it is not often used as an initial screening tool because of provider concerns about in-office tolerability, operating room costs, and use of anesthesia. The investigators aim to compare SIS and office hysteroscopy with respect to patient and provider satisfaction. Additionally, the investigators aim to assess the capability of office-based hysteroscopy to manage intra-uterine pathology at the time of diagnosis and reduce delays and supernumerary procedures.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Women aged 18 - 50
  • Patients undergoing routine cavity evaluation for planned in vitro-fertilization cycles

Exclusion Criteria

  • Clinical or radiologic suspicion of intrauterine pathology including myomas, severe intrauterine adhesions or retained products of conception
  • Those with medical criteria not suitable office hysteroscopy due to requirement of advanced tools or preparation not available in the office such as history of bleeding disorder or medical co-morbidity
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04415489). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search