Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

A patient-preference cohort study of office versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding

Lookup NU author(s): Jennifer Bainbridge, Gayle Cosgrove, Janice Gebbie

Downloads


Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).


Abstract

© 2016, The Author(s). Uterine polyps can cause abnormal bleeding in women. Conventional practise is to remove them under general anaesthesia but advances in technology have made it possible to perform polypectomy in the office setting. We conducted a patient-preference study to explore women’s preferences for treatment setting and to evaluate the effectiveness and treatment experience of women undergoing uterine polypectomy. Three hundred ninety-nine women with abnormal uterine bleeding who were found to have uterine polyps at diagnostic hysteroscopy were recruited. Office polypectomies were performed in office hysteroscopy clinics, and inpatient procedures were undertaken in operating theatres. Three hundred twenty-four of 399 (81 %) expressed a preference for office treatment. There was no difference found between office treatment and inpatient treatment in terms of alleviating abnormal uterine bleeding as assessed by patients and in improving disease-specific quality of life. Acceptability was lower and patient pain scores were significantly higher in the office group. When offered a choice of treatment setting for uterine polypectomy, patients have a preference for office over inpatient treatment. Ambulatory gynaecology services should be available within healthcare systems to meet patient demand.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Cooper NAM, Middleton L, Smith P, Denny E, Stobert L, Daniels J, Clark TJ, Cannon K, Farag KA, Raychaudhuri K, Reid M, Zahid A, Blunn J, Guruswami S, Irani S, Robinson D, Bingham T, Clark TJ, Cooper NAM, Gupta J, Madari S, Mellers D, O'Connor S, O'Hara C, Pathak M, Preece V, Sangha E, Shehmar M, Trinham P, Wilson A, Dent J, Macdonald J, Sengupta P, Brookes C, Davies J, Jackson M, Jones S, Ludkin H, Riddiough S, Allen J, Cathcart T, Cox D, Ford S, Kenny L, Phillips K, Rawal N, Rodgers A, Siddiqui J, Dine-Atkinson A, Kalkur S, Merriner G, Ben-Nagi J, Raza A, Richardson R, Hassan I, Edmundson D, Chamberlain J, Barge A, Wake P, Milford D, Walton E, Arnold S, Blake M, McCormack MJ, Naddad N, Hane J, Wood S, Labib M, Martin T, Moss S, Aziz N, Harris L, Pattison D, Pepper J, Escott M, Fender G, Saeed M, Antoniou A, Chenoy R, Morris E, Sule M, Cope A, Sharma S, Taylor T, Panay N, Rothan C, Coker A, Abdel-Aty M, Bhatia K, Gardiner S, Myint W, Willett M, Brown V, Bonner C, Connor M, Stillwell S, Horne A, Milne S, Rowan J, Ewies A, Kabukoba J, Biancardi R, Donnelly K, Dwyer L, Naidoo K, Pinton I, Chin K, Harrison T, Roger J, Sirdefield D, Stacey J, Anjum Z, Bainbridge J, Cosgrove G, Desai A, Gebbie J, Koleskas D, Ranka P, Roberts M, Cunningham C, Nwosu C

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Gynecological Surgery

Year: 2016

Volume: 13

Issue: 4

Pages: 313-322

Online publication date: 17/05/2016

Acceptance date: 05/04/2016

Date deposited: 04/04/2017

ISSN (print): 1613-2076

ISSN (electronic): 1613-2084

Publisher: Springer Verlag

URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0946-4

DOI: 10.1007/s10397-016-0946-4


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Actions

Find at Newcastle University icon    Link to this publication


Share