SIS Versus Office Hysteroscopy for Uterine Cavity Evaluation Prior to IVF: a Randomized Control Trial

Saline infusion sonography (SIS) and hysteroscopy are commonly employed methods for uterine cavity evaluation. SIS is often performed as a screening tool in the office for uterine evaluation since it is straight-forward to perform, well-tolerated has low overhead cost. If uterine pathology is suspected on SIS, subsequent hysteroscopy is typically performed in the operating room. Hysteroscopy remains the gold standard for diagnosis of intra-uterine pathology and offers the opportunity for intervention at time of diagnosis, but often is not used as the initial screening tool because of provider concerns about in-office tolerability, equipment cost and maintenance. Technology advancements, however, has introduced an affordable, disposable, small caliber hysteroscopes with an operative channel to make it possible for this type of assessment to be performed in the office setting with the addition of a 'see and treat' modality. If used to perform initial uterine cavity evaluation, hysteroscopy may offer expedited diagnosis, treatment, and avoidance of general anesthesia. If superior specificity is demonstrated, it may also lower the false positive rate, preventing unnecessary delays to a patient's projected treatment plan, and unnecessary exposure to anesthesia risks. To date, no randomized control trials have compared the satisfaction of patients and providers to saline infusion sonography versus office hysteroscopy without anesthesia in initial cavity evaluation with the ability to immediately address intra-uterine pathology.