With the advances in miniature instruments, office hysteroscopy on conscious patients has been the standard to explore the intrauterine pathology, with the ability to perform some minor procedures concomitantly. Patients usually appreciate the efficient "see and treat" procedures with such minimal discomfort that exempt from the inconvenience of going into the operating room and the need for anesthesia. However, controversies exist in the appropriateness of its application in some clinical situations. Concerns include (1) the criteria for hysteroscopy applied in the vast number of patients suffering from abnormal uterine bleeding or subfertility, and (2) the frequency for repeated hysteroscopy on some kinds of patients, such as those of endometrial cancer with fertility-sparing treatment for monitoring the disease, or those of severe intrauterine adhesion who need adhesiolysis for subsequent conception, in whom the appropriate protocol of repeatedly applying hysteroscopy lacks consensus. This article reviews the literature to find the best available evidence on the effectiveness of office hysteroscopy in comparison with other clinical diagnostic tools, as well as the current opinions on such controversies in its application.
Keywords: Abnormal uterine bleeding; Endometrial malignancy; Fertility-sparing treatment; Hysteroscopy; Intrauterine adhesion.
Copyright © 2018 Formosan Medical Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.