Electronic Continuous Pain Measurement vs Verbal Rating Scale in gynaecology: A prospective cohort study

(1)

University of Groningen

Electronic Continuous Pain Measurement vs Verbal Rating Scale in gynaecology

Louwerse, Marjoleine D; Hehenkamp, Wouter J K; van Kesteren, Paul J M; Lissenberg, Birgit

I; Brölmann, Hans A M; Huirne, Judith A F

Published in:

European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology

DOI:

10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.11.012

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from

it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:

2021

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Louwerse, M. D., Hehenkamp, W. J. K., van Kesteren, P. J. M., Lissenberg, B. I., Brölmann, H. A. M., &

Huirne, J. A. F. (2021). Electronic Continuous Pain Measurement vs Verbal Rating Scale in gynaecology: A

prospective cohort study. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 256,

263-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.11.012

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

Electronic

Continuous

Pain

Measurement

vs

Verbal

Rating

Scale

in

gynaecology:

A

prospective

cohort

study

Marjoleine

D. Louwerse

a,

*

,

Wouter

J.K.

Hehenkamp

a

,

Paul

J.M.

van

Kesteren

b

,

Birgit

I. Lissenberg

c

,

Hans

A.M.

Brölmann

a

,

Judith

A.F.

Huirne

a

a_Department_of_Obstetrics_and_Gynaecology,_Amsterdam_University_Medical_Centres,_Amsterdam,_the_Netherlands b

DepartmentofObstetricsandGynaecology,OLVGEast,Amsterdam,theNetherlands

c

DepartmentofEpidemiologyandDataScience,AmsterdamUniversityMedicalCentres,Amsterdam,theNetherlands

ARTICLE INFO

Articlehistory:

Received5February2020

Receivedinrevisedform27October2020 Accepted6November2020

Keywords: Pain

ContinuousPainScoreMeter

Continuousreal-timepainmeasurement Electronicpainmeasurement

VerbalRatingScale VisualAnalogueScale Outpatienthysteroscopy Colposcopy

Ovumpick-up

ABSTRACT

Objective:Tocomparepainmeasuredwithanewelectronicdevice–theContinuousPainScoreMeter (CPSM)–andtheVerbalRatingScale(VRS)duringgynaecologicalproceduresinanoutpatientsetting, andtocorrelatetheseoutcomeswithbaselineanxietyandpatient(in)tolerancetotheprocedure. Studydesign:Thisprospectivecohortstudywasundertakenintwocentres:auniversityhospitalanda largeteachinghospitalinTheNetherlands.Patientsundergoinganoutpatienthysteroscopy,colposcopy orovumpick-upprocedureforin-vitro fertilizationin oneofthetwoparticipating hospitals with availabilityoftheCPSM wereincluded.PainwasmeasuredbyboththeCPSMandtheVRS.Patient tolerancetotheprocedurewasreported.VariousoutcomesoftheCPSMwerecomparedwiththoseofthe VRSandrelatedtobaselineanxietyscores.

Results:Ninety-oneof108includedpatients(84%)usedtheCPSMcorrectlyduringtheprocedure,andit waspossibletoanalysetheCPSMscoresfor87women(81%).TheCPSMscoreswerealllinearlyrelatedto theVRS.ThepeakpainscoreontheCPSM(CPSM-PPS)hadthestrongestcorrelationwiththeVRSscore forallthreeprocedures.HigherCPSM-PPSwasrelatedtopatient(in)tolerancetotheprocedure(p=0.03– 0.002).Anxietyatbaselinewasnotcorrelatedwithpainperception,exceptforVRSduringcolposcopy(r= 0.39,p=0.016).

Conclusion:ThemajorityofpatientswereabletousetheCPSMcorrectly,resultingindetailedinformation onpainperceptionforeachindividualpainstimulusduringthreeoutpatientgynaecologicalprocedures. The CPSM-PPS had the strongest correlation withthe VRS score and patient (in)tolerance to the procedure.

Introduction

Minimally invasive surgery has evolved in all surgical dis-ciplines.Moreandmoregynaecologicalproceduresareperformed inanoutpatientsettinggiventhehealthandeconomicbeneﬁtsof theseminimallyinvasiveprocedures[1–3].Forexample, diagnos-ticandtherapeutichysteroscopiesareperformedincreasinglyin outpatientsettings[4–7].Patientperceptionsofpainexperienced duringaprocedureplayakeyroleintheirperceivedtoleranceand theirsatisfactionconcerningthetreatment[8–12].However,pain perception can differ widely between patients and could be aggravated by anxiety [13_–15], underlining the need for pain

measurement and assessment of patient tolerability [16,17]. Obtainingdetailedinformationonpainperceptionduringdifferent partsofaprocedureenablesadjustmentsthataimtoreducepain andimproveperceivedtoleranceandthesuccessrateofspeciﬁc interventions.

Ingeneral,painintensityismeasuredafteraprocedureusing theVisualAnalogueScale(VAS)ortheVerbalRatingScale(VRS) [18].Thesescoresareobtainedwiththeuseofan11-pointscale indicating_‘nopain_’to_‘worstimaginablepain_’.Althoughquickand easytoperform,thesemethodshavetheirlimitations:inabilityto measure pain of different pain stimuli during a procedure, inaccuracy ofmemory torecall thesensationof pain, and lack ofinformationonthepossiblerelationshipbetweenpaintolerance and lengthof procedure.To overcome theselimitations, a new instrumenthasbeendeveloped–thevalidatedContinuousPain ScoreMeter(CPSM).Thismeasurespaincontinuously,generating an ‘experienced pain curve’ obtained during all steps of an

*Correspondingauthorat:UMCG,Centerforreproductivemedicine,HPCCB35, Postbus30.001,9700RB,Groningen,theNetherlands.

E-mailaddress:[email protected](M.D.Louwerse).

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

European

Journal

of

Obstetrics

&

Gynecology

and

Reproductive

Biology

(3)

intervention [19]. Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibilityofelectronicpainmeasurementandpatientspreferred this to pain evaluation on paper [20–23]. To the authors’ knowledge, use of the CPSM during gynaecological procedures hasnotbeenevaluatedpreviously.

Theaimofthisstudywastodeterminethefeasibilityofthe CPSMduringthreedifferentgynaecologicaloutpatientprocedures, andtocomparetheoutcomeswithreportedVRSscores,patient perceivedtoleranceandbaselineanxietyscores.

Materialsandmethods Studydesignandparticipants

ThisprospectivecohortstudywasconductedbetweenAugust andNovember2011attheoutpatientclinicsoftheDepartmentof GynaecologyoftheOnzeLieveVrouweGasthuis(OLVG)andthe VUmedicalcentre(VUmc)inAmsterdam,TheNetherlands.

Eligible patientswere askedfor informedconsent. Inclusion criteria were: age 18–80 years; and scheduled to undergo colposcopy,ovumpick-uporhysteroscopyinanoutpatientsetting. Exclusioncriteriawere:inabilitytocomprehendDutchorEnglish properly;and(forhysteroscopy)pregnancyorbeingintheluteal phasewithouttheuseofcontraception;knowncervicalstenosisor malignancy; current sexually transmitted disease or pelvic inﬂammatorydisease;or contra-indicationsfortheuseof non-steroidalanti-inﬂammatorydrugs(NSAIDs).

All gynaecological procedures were performed under stan-dardized conditions. In all hysteroscopy cases, a 5.5-mm rigid scope with a 30 optical angle was used (Olympus Europe, Hamburg,GermanyatOLVG;Storz,Tüttlingen,GermanyatVUmc). Operatingsheathswere5Frand7Fr,respectively.Patientswere instructedtotakeNSAIDs(500mgNaprosyne)theeveningbefore and 2–3 hbeforehysteroscopy. Local anaesthesia in thecervix (cervicalblock),acombinationofArticainandadrenaline(3.4ml UltracainD-Sforte,40mg–5

m

g/mL,Sanoﬁ-Aventis,Paris,France), was givenonlyifcervicaldilatationwasperformed.During this procedure, small intracavitary abnormalities were removed if detected.CuscospeculaandanOlympusOCS500colposcopewere usedinallcolposcopypatients;noneofthemreceivedanaesthetic. Ovumpick-upprocedureswereachievedusinga1.4-mm(17GA, Repromed)needlewithalengthof35cm.Inadvanceofthe pick-up, all women received opioids (2 ml pethidine, 50 mg/mL, Martindale Pharmaceuticals, London, UK) and benzodiazepines (7.5mgDormicuminwomenweighing<70kgor15mgDormicum

inwomenweighing>70kg,AllianceHealthcare,Chessington,UK). Applied medication and eventual co-interventions were regis-tered.

ContinuousPainScoreMeterandpainsoftware

TheCPSMwasdevelopedin2008andvalidationfollowedin 2009measuringreproduciblepainstimuliinhealthyvolunteers [19].Anadjustablesliderwhichisavoltagedivider(Studiofader 100KB,AlpsElectricCo.,Ltd,Tokyo,Japan)isattachedtothemeter, a30-cmbox,tomarkpainintensityonacontinuousscalebasedon theVASfrom0to10(Fig.1).Whenapatientreleasesthisslider,it willreturntoitsoriginalposition,therebypreventingerroneous highmeasurement. TheCPSM isconnected toa computerthat containsspecialdevelopedpainsoftware(PainScope).Itmeasures anddocuments,throughthe(changing)positionoftheslider,10 painstimulipersecondandtransformstheimportedinformation in a graph (Fig. 2). Obtained data are translated into three outcomes:theareaunderthecurve(CPSM-AUC),thepeakpain score(CPSM-PPS, thehighest registeredscore) andthe average painpersecond(CPSM-APS,thetotalCPSM-AUCdividedbythe totaloperationtime).Duringpainmeasurement,theexamineris abletomarkthebeginningandendofspeciﬁcpartsofaprocedure (e.g.placementofaspeculum,startandendofcervicaldilatation, scopepassagethroughtheendocervix,orstartandendofapolyp resection).Thesemarkerswillbedepictedinthepaingraph,which makesitpossibletoevaluatethepainoutcomesofthesespeciﬁc parts of theintervention. Allthesedata areprocessed for data managementandstatisticalanalysesusingExcel(MicrosoftCorp., Redmond, WA, USA) and SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) software.

Datacollection

First, baseline characteristics and patients’ anxiety scores (Likert scale: 0 = no anxiety to 10=extremely anxious) were registered. When the patient was positioned, she received instructionsontheuseoftheCPSM;asapartofthisinstruction, theCPSMwastestedonce beforethestart oftheprocedure by givingthepatientamildpressurestimulusonherhand.Women wereaskedtoexpresstheirpainbycontrollingtheCPSMduring theentireprocedure.Whentheexaminersuspectedincorrectuse ornousageatall,patientswereremindedofthepresenceofthe CPSMandgentlyaskedtouseit.Thedegreeof(in)correctusage accordingtotheinvestigatorandpatient,usingan11-pointscale

Fig.1.TheContinuousPainScoreMeter:laptopwiththesoftware(PainScope)andthepainslider.

M.D.Louwerse,W.J.K.Hehenkamp,P.J.M.vanKesterenetal. EuropeanJournalofObstetrics&GynecologyandReproductiveBiology256(2021)263–269

(4)

(0=alwayscorrectto10=alwaysincorrect),wasregisteredinthe casereportform.Painmeasurementswereexcludedfromanalysis whentheinvestigator,patientorbothscored5(i.e.incorrectuse) onthisscale.Variousstandardizedmarkers(e.g.forhysteroscopy, two of the 12 registered markers are passing external os and passing internal os) were placed in the pain score graph electronically bytheexaminerduringtheprocedureinorderto enable laterdifferentiationbetweenvariouspartsof the proce-dure,astheymayserveasdifferentpainstimuli(Fig.2).

Immediately after the procedure, participants were asked to expresstheaveragepainexperiencedduringtheentireprocedure usingtheVRS.Also,thepatient’sperceptiononhowtheytoleratedthe procedure was registered (tolerated yes/no, willingness to undergo the procedureagainifneededandtheirrecommendationtoafriend). Statisticalanalysis

SPSSVersion25forWindowswasusedafterimportingthedata from an Exceldata sheet.To correlatethe newpain units and baseline anxietywith theVRS score, Pearson’s correlation was calculatedwith95%conﬁdenceintervals[24].Two-sidedp-values werereported.Aprobabilitylevelof<0.05wasusedforstatistical signiﬁcance.

The Mann–WhitneyU-testwas usedtocomparemediansof non-normally-distributedpainscoresandtodifferentiatebetween tolerabilityandintolerabilityofaprocedure.Whenresultswere normally distributed, calculations were executed using the independentsamplest-test.Boxplotsvisualizedpatienttolerance ofhysteroscopicprocedurescomparedwithpainscores.Stata/IC Version11.2wasusedtocreatereceiveroperatingcharacteristic (ROC)curvestoreportpatienttolerancefornon-normal distribu-tionsinordertocompareCPSMscoreswithVRSscores.

Apost-hocpoweranalysiswasperformedtoconﬁrmadequate power and thereby ensure the signiﬁcance of the results. The primaryobjectiveofthisstudywastodeterminethecorrelation betweenresultsoftwodifferentmeasurementinstruments:the

VAS and the CPSM (CPSM-AUC, CPSM-PPS, CPSM-APS). The

analysiswasbasedoncorrelationsof0.80,0.82and0.39(Table3). Results

Of the women who met the selection criteria,108 women agreed to participate in this study. Baselinecharacteristics are describedinTable1.

Colposcopy

Allpainmeasurementswerecompletedforthe51patientsin thisgroup.In12cases,theinvestigator(n=3),thepatient(n=5)or both(n=4)judgedtheusageoftheCPSMtobeincorrect.Inthis subgroup,meanexperiencedpain(VRS)wasequaltoandanxiety washighercomparedwiththegroupwhousedtheCPSMcorrectly (p=0.088andp=0.005,respectively)(Table2).Theresultsforthe remaining39women(76%)wereanalysed.

Table 2 shows the results of the pain measurements and tolerability during colposcopy. All CPMSoutcomes (CPSM-AUC, CPSM-PPS and CPSM-APS) were linearly related to the VRS

Fig.2.Exampleofapainscoregraphduringhysteroscopy.Differentstandardizedmarkers(i.e.startand/orendofspeciﬁcprocedures)aredepictedinthegraphwhilethe proceduretookplace.

Table1

Baselinecharacteristicsoftheparticipants. Procedure Patientvariables Colposcopy

(n=51)

Ovumpick-up (n=27)

Hysteroscopy (n=30) Age(years),meanSD 34.69.3 36.04.3 45.813.9 BMI(kg/m2 ),meanSD 21.52.5 23.53.2 25.24.5 Smoking,n(%) Yes 19(37.2) 2(7.4) 4(13.3) No 29(56.9) 25(92.6) 24(80.0) Unknown 3(5.9) 0(0.0) 2(6.7) Contraceptiveuse,n(%) None 18(35.3) 27(100.0) 22(73.3) Hormonal 23(45.2) 0(0.0) 3(10.0) Condom 2(3.9) 0(0.0) 5(16.7) Other 8(15.6) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) Parity,median(IQR) 0.0(2.0) 0.0(1.0) 1.0(2.0)

Caesareandelivery 0 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) Nulliparous,n(%) 33(64.7) 19(70.0) 9(30.0) Menopausalstate,n(%)

Premenopausal 50(98.0) 27(100.0) 21(70.0) Postmenopausal 1(2.0) 0(0.0) 9(30.0) Surgicalprocedureinhistory,n(%)

Cervix 4(7.8) 1(3.7) 0(0.0) Uterus 3(5.9) 2(7.4) 5(16.6) Tubes 0(0.0) 4(0.15) 2(6.6) Indicationfortheprocedure,n(%)

AUB 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 24(80.0)

Infertility 0(0.0) 27(100.0) 2(6.7) Abnormalcervixcytology 42(82.4) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) Postcoitalbleeding 9(17.6) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) Other 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 4(13.3) BMI,bodymassindex;SD,standard deviation;IQR,interquartilerange; AUB, abnormaluterinebleeding.

(5)

(p=0.001)(Table3).TheCPSM-PPSshowedthestrongest‘almost perfect’correlation (r= 0.86); for both theCPMS-AUC and the CPSM-APS,thecorrelationcoefﬁcientwas0.82.

Allwomenexcepttworeportedthatcolposcopywastolerable without additional anaesthesia. The mean VRS score in the ‘tolerable’groupwas2.8[standarddeviation(SD)2.4]compared with5.0(SD2.8)inthe_{‘intolerable’}group.ThemedianCPSM scoresforthe‘tolerable’vs‘intolerable’groupswere:CPSM-AUC 311.8[interquartilerange(IQR)1907.6]vs3749.0(IQR-);CPSM-PPS 1.9(IQR5.3)vs10.0(IQR-);andCPSM-AP:1.5(IQR4.2)vs7.3(IQR -)].ThedifferencewassigniﬁcantforCPSM-PPS(p=0.03).

Anxiety at baseline showed signiﬁcant ‘fair’ correlation (r= 0.39)withtheVRSscore(p=0.016),butnotwithanyoftheCPSM scores.

Ovumpick-upprocedure

Ofthe27womenintheovumpick-upgroup,CPSM measure-mentscouldbeincludedfor21(78%)womenforstatisticalpain analysis.Therewassoftwarefailureintwocases,andfourpatients scored5indicatingincorrectuseoftheCPSM.Meanexperienced painscore(4.7)andmeanbaselineanxietyscore(1.7)wereequal comparedwithwomenwhousedtheCPSMcorrectly(p=0.87and p=0.088,respectively)(Table2).

Painscoresduringovumpick-uparereportedinTable2.VRS scores were‘substantially’ correlated with CPSM-PPS (r= 0.80,

p=0.001)and‘moderately’correlatedwithCPSM-APS(r=0.55,p= 0.009),butwerenotcorrelatedwithCPSM-AUC(seeTable3).

One-thirdofthewomenreportedthattheyexperiencedovum pick-up under the current conditions asintolerable due to the perceived pain (n = 7). Pain scores were signiﬁcantly higher compared with women who reported that the procedure was tolerable(n=14);meanVRSscore7.0(SD2.2)vs3.3(SD2.3)(p =0.007);medianCPSM-AUC4681.5(IQR12204.3)vs591.3(IQR 3620.8)(p=0.009);medianCPSM-PPS9.2(IQR3.3)vs2.9(IQR3.1) (p=0.002);andmedianCPSM-APS12.8(IQR23.7)vs1.5(IQR8.7) (p=0.007),respectively.

AnxietyscoreatbaselinewasnotcorrelatedwiththeVRSscore oranyoftheCPSMscores(p0.49).

Outpatienthysteroscopy

Intotal,30patientswereincludedinthehysteroscopygroup; theCPSMoutcomes couldbeanalysedfor 27 of thesepatients (90%).Inonecase,theCPSMfailedbecauseofsoftwareproblems; inanothercase,hysteroscopyfailedduetocervicalstenosis;andin thethirdcase,thepatientforgottoadjusttheCPSMsliderduring theprocedure.The reportedmeanVRS score(7.0) andbaseline anxietyscore(1.0)weresimilarinthegroupwithevaluableCPSM outcomesandthegroupwithnon-evaluableoutcomes(p=0.34 andp=0.21,respectively)(Table2).

Painscores,anxietyscores,tolerabilityandtotaloperationtime arereportedinTable2.VRSscoreswerelinearlyrelatedtoallofthe CPSMoutcomes(Table3).CPSM-PPSwas‘substantially’(r=0.77) related(p=0.0001),CPSM-AUCwas‘moderately’(r=0.43)related (p=0.025)andCPSM-APSwas‘fairly’(r=0.39)related(p=0.042). ReportedVRSscoresweresigniﬁcantlylowerinthegroupof patientswhoreportedthattheproceduresweretolerable(n=22) underthecurrentconditionscomparedwiththosewhoreported thattheprocedureswereintolerable(n=5)(Fig.3).ThemeanVRS scorewas3.1(SD2.3)vs7.2(SD2.6),respectively(p=0.007). MedianCPSM-PPSwas2.5(IQR3.0)and10.0(IQR6.0),respectively (p=0.014).DifferencesinmedianCPSM-AUCandCPSM-APSwere not signiﬁcant: CPSM-AUC 1173.5 (IQR 2903.4) vs 2470.0 (IQR 5094.8)(p=0.26)andCPSM-APS3.5(IQR6.89)vs5.5(IQR4.56)(p =0.26).Thedegreeofanxietyatbaselinewasnotrelatedtoanyof thereportedpainoutcomesduringhysteroscopy(p0.59).

The pain scores of the different parts of the hysteroscopic procedures are reportedin Table 4. The fourevents that were

Table2

Outcomemeasuresconcerningpainduringandaftertheprocedure;anxietyscoreatbaseline;totalproceduretime;andoverallpatienttoleranceofcolposcopy,ovumpick-up andhysteroscopy. Procedure Measurementvariablesa Colposcopy (n=39) Ovumpick-up (n=21) Hysteroscopy (n=27) VRS+CPSMb 2.82.3 4.52.8 4.12.9 VRS–CPSMc 4.22.6 4.70.6 7.0 CPSM-AUC 496.0(1971.4) 2610.9(6414.7) 1175.8(4263.3) CPSM-PPS(VASmax) 1.8(5.5) 3.6(5.5) 2.9(4.7) CPSM-APS(Tauc/Ttime) 1.5(4.4) 8.0(12.4) 4.3(5.9) Anxiety+CPSMd 4.42.5 4.22.5 4.52.6 Anxiety–CPSMe 6.71.8 1.71.5 1.0

Totalproceduretime(min) 7.53.0 7.62.4 8.16.9

Tolerability(%) 37(94.9) 14(66.7) 22(81.5)

VRS,VerbalRatingScale;CPSM,ContinuousPainScoreMeter;VAS,VisualAnalogueScale;AUC,areaunderthecurve;PPS,peakpainscore;APS,averagepainpersecond;IQR, interquartilerange.

a

Median(IQR)unlessotherwisestated.

b

MeanVRSSDofthewomenwhousedtheCPSMcorrectly.

c

MeanVRSSDofthewomenwhodidnotusetheCPSMcorrectly.

d

MeanbaselineanxietySDofthewomenwhousedtheCPSMcorrectly.

e

MeanbaselineanxietySDofthewomenwhodidnotusetheCPSMcorrectly.

Table3

CorrelationbetweenVerbalRatingScale(VRS)andContinuousPainScoreMeter (CPSM)outcomes.

Procedure r-value p-value

Colposcopy CPSM-AUC 0.82 0.001 CPSM-PPS 0.86 0.001 CPSM-APS 0.82 0.001 Ovumpick-up CPSM-AUC – 0.053 CPSM-PPS 0.80 0.001 CPSM-APS 0.55 0.009 Hysteroscopy CPSM-AUC 0.39 0.042 CPSM-PPS 0.77 0.0001 CPSM-APS 0.43 0.025

VRS,VerbalRatingScale;CPSM,ContinuousPainScoreMeter;AUC,areaunderthe curve;PPS,peakpainscore;APS,averagepainpersecond.

(6)

registeredasmostpainfulwerepassageofthescopethroughthe cervical canal (deﬁned as the period betweenthe start of the passage of the external osuntil the end of the passageof the internalos,andthuswhenthescopereachedtheuterinecavity), cervicaldilatation,synechiolysisandpolypresection.

To illustrate the accuracy of the various pain scores using patienttolerancetoaprocedureasareferencetest,variousROC curveswereplotted(seeFig.4).TheareaundertheROCcurvewas largestforVRSscore(0.89)andCPSM-PPS(0.86).TheAUCsofthe ROCcurvesforCPSM-AUCandCPSM-APSwereboth0.66.

Fig.3.BoxandWhiskerplotsofVerbalRatingScale(VRS)andContinuousPainScoreMeter(CPSM)scoresinpatientswhoreportedtheoutpatienthysteroscopytobe tolerable(yes)vsintolerable(no).

Table4

Painscoresrelatedtovariouspartsofahysteroscopyprocedure. Hysteroscopy

Speciﬁcpartofthehysteroscopy n CPSM-AUC [median(IQR)]

CPSM-PPS[median(IQR)] CPSM-APS[median(IQR)] Cervicalpassagehysteroscope 27 359.0(1381.4) 2.3(4.9) 5.6(8.0)

Dilatatingcervix 5 343.1(565.3) 1.9(6.4) 6.2(24.3) Insertingspeculum 9 23.8(82.6) 0.1(1.6) 0.9(3.4) Tenaculumplacement 7 0.4(33.6) 0.0(0.2) 0.0(9.2) Cervicalblock 6 6.3(30.7) 0.1(0.6) 0.2(1.0) Resectionofpolyp 10 106.8(3608.5) 1.7(5.5) 0.9(14.2) Synechiolysis 2 121.5(-) 2.4(-) 0.1(-) Endometrialbiopsy 3 88.7(-) 0.9(-) 1.4(-)

InsertingIUDafterhysteroscopy 2 37.5(-) 0.1(-) 1.3(-)

(7)

Discussion Mainﬁndings

ThisstudyconfirmedthefeasibilityoftheuseoftheCPSMfor threedifferentgynaecologicaloutpatientprocedures.Afterproper instruction, 91 of 108 patients(84 %) managedto operatethe device adequately. However, during pain measurements, some patientshad difficultieshandlingthe CPSMcorrectly.Subgroup analysiswas performedafterwards,andtheresultsbetweenthe groupwhooperatedtheCPSMcorrectlyandthegroupwhodidnot operate the CPSM correctly were not significantly different; however, thismayhavebeeninfluenced bytherelativelysmall sample size. In general, higher VRS scores were registered in women who failed to usethe CPSM correctly; 65 %of the 17 patients whodid notusethe CPSMcorrectlyscoredabovethe median score for thepatients who usedtheCPSM correctly. It appearstobemoredifficulttoexecutethistaskwhileexperiencing severepain;however,bycontrollingtheCPSMslider,patientsmay feelagreaterdegreeofcontrol,whichcouldbeevenmorerelevant foranxiouspatients.Theseitemsmaybethetopicoffuturestudies. TheVRSscorewaslinearlycorrelatedwithalltheCPSMscores

(CPSM-AUC, CPSM-PPS and CPSM-APS) during all assessed

procedures. CPSM-PPS showed the strongest correlation with the VRS score. Both the VRS score and CPSM-PPS showed the strongestcorrelationwithpatientjudgementconcerningwhether the procedure was tolerable or intolerable under the given circumstances.

Interpretationoftheresults,clinicalimplicationsandfuture perspectives

Accuracyofthenewpainscoresobtainedbyelectronicpain measurementwiththeCPSMwashighandcomparablewiththe commonlyusedVRS.Giventhehighcorrelationbetween CPSM-PPSandpatientjudgementofthe(in)tolerabilityoftheprocedure, anditsstrongcorrelationwiththeVRSscore,itcanbeconcluded thatpeopleappeartohavethebestrecalloftheworstexperienced pain.Itispossiblethatthismomentrepresentsthepainperception oftheentireprocedure.ThegreatestadvantageoftheCPSMover

theVRSisitsability tomeasurecontinuouslyduringtheentire procedure, providing information on all individual steps. This allows the detection of specific steps that are most painful, measuredmoreobjectively.ThepotentialapplicationsoftheCPSM are numerous. It can reveal, for example, specific patient characteristicsinrelationtopainperception,withtheresultthat strategiestoreducepaincanbedevelopedatanindividuallevel andimprovepatienttolerancetoalltypesofprocedures.Itcould alsobeusedtostudytheeffectoforalpainkillers,tocomparelocal anaestheticswithplaceboduringvariousofficeprocedures,andto determinetheconsequencesofusingdifferentintrauterineagents duringsonohysterographyorhysterosalpingography.Inaddition, non-pharmacologicaleffectsonpaincanbestudiedindetail,such asthepresenceofanurseguidingthepatient,ortheuseofmusic orimages.Workhasalreadycommencedonthisbytheauthors’ studygroup,comparingtwotypesofgelsusedduringgelinfusion sonography, and a comparative study was performed using misoprostol vs placebo before hysteroscopy to determine the effectonpain[25].Foryears,effortshavebeenmade,invain,to discover the best method for pain reduction in outpatient procedures,especiallyduringhysteroscopy.However,thereisstill nounambiguousadvice,eitherpharmacologicalor non-pharma-cological[26–28].TheCPSMmaybethesolutiontoprovidemore clarityandinsighttoreducepainduringtheseprocedures.

TheCPSMresultsaredepictedgraphically,butanotherpossible featureisthatfeedbackcouldbegivenbyasound.Highertones reﬂectmorepain.Thissoundcanbeswitchedonoroff,andthe intensitycanbechanged.Therefore,theCPSMcouldtheoretically be used for immediate feedback to the surgeon, potentially resultingin less paindue tothesurgeon’s ability toadjust the treatmentdirectlyinordertoreducepain.Inaddition,thiscould reducepainduetochangesinthepatient’sperceptionofpain,with theknowledge thatthere is immediate feedback and therefore morecontrol.Futurestudiesshouldbeundertakentodetermineif theuseoftheCPSMdoesaltertheperceptionofpain.

Various studies have reported that fear and anxiety may aggravatepain[13–15].ApartfromtheVRSscoresincolposcopy, the present results did not support this ﬁnding. Remarkably, women reported higher anxietyscores before colposcopythan before ovum pick-up, while lower pain scores were reported duringcolposcopy.Itishypothesizedthatapartfromthefearof pain, other factors may play a role, such as the fear of the histologicalresult(i.e.cervicalcarcinoma)inthesepatients. Strengthsandlimitations

Allprocedureswereperformedunderstandardizedconditions, andintervariability onlyexistedbetweenpatients. All examina-tions wereundertaken bywell-trained and experienced practi-tioners, so the factor time or disability that comes with inexperiencedidnotplay arole in thisstudy. Continuous real-time pain measurement was performed during three different gynaecological procedures, allowing comparison between the patientgroups,andalsoallowingevaluationofitsfeasibilityduring differentprocedures.

ThenewlyobtainedCPSMpainscoreswerecomparedwitha validated pain score (VRS), and the CPSM itself is a validated instrument.Therefore,measurementaccuracyislikely.

Alimitationofthisstudyisthatthethreestudygroupswere relatively small. Additionally, some selection bias cannot be excluded because study registration was only executed when theCPSMandtheresearcherwereavailable.Inthreeof108cases, softwarefailureoccurred.Softwareupgradeswillpreventthisin futurestudies.Anotherlimitationofthisstudyisthatthedatawere acquiredin2011andanalysedin2019.However,itisbelievedthat thecurrentdataarestillhighlyinnovativeandrelevantfordaily

Fig.4. Receiveroperatingcharacteristiccurveofpainoutcomesusingtolerabilityof thehysteroscopyasthereferencetest.Largestareasunderthecurvewerefoundfor theVerbalRatingScalescore(VRS;0.89)andtheContinuousPainScoreMeterpeak painscore(CPSM-PPS;0.86).FortheCPSMareaunderthecurve(CPSM-AUC)and CPSMaveragepainpersecond(CPSM-APS),theareasunderthecurvewereboth 0.66.

(8)

practice.Nostudiesoncontinuouspainmeasurementhavebeen publishedinthelast8years.

Conclusion

Ingeneral,patientsundergoingagynaecologicalprocedurein an outpatient setting are able to operate the CPSM whilst undergoing the procedure, and the measured CPSM outcomes correlate well withthe commonly used VRS. One of the main advantagesofpainevaluationusingtheCPSMovertheVRSisthat theCPSMreportsthepainoutcomesofvariousstimuliduringone procedure, separately. Both the CPSM-PPS and the VRS score correlate well withthe judgement of women concerningtheir tolerance orintoleranceoftheprocedureinthecurrentsetting, and this can beusedduring future studiestooptimizevarious outpatientproceduresingynaecologyinordertoreducepain. Contributiontoauthorship

ContributorsMLO,HBRandJHUdesignedthestudy.PKEand WHEwereinvolvedinthestudydesign.MLOincludedpatients. MLOand BLIanalysedthedata.MLOwrotethemanuscript.All authorscriticallyreviewedandapprovedtheﬁnalmanuscript.JHU istheguarantor.

Detailsofethicsapproval

Approval, date 01-06-2011,was obtained from The Medical EthicsReviewCommitteeofVUUniversityMedicalCenterthatis registered with the US Ofﬁce for Human Research Protections

(OHRP) as IRB00002991. The FWA number assigned to VU

University Medical Centeris FWA00017598. Thestudy is regis-trated at the ISRCTN registry and the clinical trial number is: ISRCTN15427669.

Funding None.

DeclarationofCompetingInterest

The authors declare that they have no known competing ﬁnancial interests or personal relationships that could have appearedtoinﬂuencetheworkreportedinthispaper.

Acknowledgements

Theauthorswishtothankallofthepatientswhoconsentedto participateinthisstudy;EwoutBoschwhohelpedwith develop-mentofPainScope;theirco-workersF.Poelsma,M.Vreeburg,S. Graumans, E. van de Oudeweetering and A. Zikmund for their supportiveactivities;andalltheotherparticipantsinvolvedinthis study.

References

[1]MettlerL,ClevinL,TernamianA,PuntambekarS,SchollmeyerI,AlkatoutI.The past,presentandfutureofminimallyinvasiveendoscopyingynaecology:a

review and speculative outlook. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2013;22:210–26.

[2]HartelW.Thehistoricalimpactofminimallyinvasivesurgery.NihonGeka GakkaiZasshi2000;101:274–5.

[3]MoawadNS,SantamariaE,JohnsonM,ShusterJ.Cost-effectivenessofofﬁce hysteroscopyforabnormaluterinebleeding.JSLS2014;18:e.2014.00393. [4]CentiniG,TroiaL,LazzeriL,PetragliaF,LuisiS.Modernoperativehysteroscopy.

MinervaGinecol2016;68:126–32.

[5]ReadmanE,MahlerPJ.Painreliefandoutpatienthysteroscopy:aliterature review.JAmAssocGynecolLaprosc2004;11:315–9.

[6]SalazarAC,IsaacsonKB.Ofﬁceoperativehysteroscopy:anupdate.JMinim InvasiveGynecol2018;25:199–208.

[7]BennettA, Lepage C, TavornK, etal. Effectiveness ofoutpatient versus operatingroomhysteroscopyfor thediagnosisand treatmentofuterine conditions:asystematicreviewandmeta-analysis.JObstetGynaecolCan 2019;41:930–41.

[8]DelValleC,SolanoJA,RodríguezA,AlonsoM.Painmanagementinoutpatient hysteroscopy.GynecolMinimInvasiveTher2016;5:141–7.

[9]RoyalCollegeofObstetricansandGynaecologists.Bestpracticeinoutpatient hysteroscopy.RCOGGreen-topguidelineNo.59.London:RCOG;2011. [10]McIlwaineK,ReadmanE,CameronM,MaherP.Outpatienthysteroscopy:

factors inﬂuencing post-procedure acceptability in patients attending a tertiaryreferralcenter.AustNZJObstetGynaecol2009;49:650–2. [11]CampoR,MolinasCR,RombautsL,etal.Prospectivemulticentrerandomized

controlledtrial toevaluatefactors inﬂuencingthe successrate ofofﬁce diagnostichysteroscopy.HumReprod2005;20:258–63.

[12]IrelandLD,AllenRH.Painmanagementforgynecologicproceduresinthe ofﬁce.ObstetGynecolSurv2016;71:89–98.

[13]KokanaliMK,CavkaytarS,GuzelAI,etal.Impactofpreproceduralanxiety levelsonpainperceptioninpatientsundergoingofﬁcehysteroscopy.JChin MedAssoc2014;77:477–81.

[14]CicinelliE,RossiAC,MarinaccioM,MatteoM,SalianiN,TinelliR.Predictive factorsforpainexperiencedatofﬁceﬂuidminihysteroscopy.JMinimInvasive Gynecol2007;14:485–8.

[15]GuptaJk, ClarkTj, More S,Pattison H. Patient anxietyand experiences associatedwithanoutpatient‘one-stop’‘seeandtreat’hysteroscopyclinic. SurgEndosc2004;18:1099–104.

[16]deFreitasFonsecaM,SessaFV,ResendeJr.JA,GuerraCG,AndradeJr.CH,Crispi CP.Identifyingpredictorsofunacceptablepainatofﬁcehysteroscopy.JMinim InvasiveGynecol2014;21:586–91.

[17]MaT,ReadmanE,HicksL,etal.Isoutpatienthysteroscopythenewgold standard?Resultsfroman11-yearprospectiveobservationalstudy.AustNZJ ObstetGynaecol2017;57:74–80.

[18]HuskissonEC.Measurementofpain.Lancet1975;304:1127–31.

[19]BoormansEM,vanKesterenPJ,RobertoSP,BrölmannHA,ZuurmondWW. Reliabilityofacontinuouspainscoremeter:realtimepainmeasurement.Pain Pract2009;9:100–4.

[20]AaronL,TurnerJ,ManclJ,BristerH,SawchukC.Electronicdiaryassessmentof pain-relatedvariables:isreactivityaproblem?Pain2005;6:107–15. [21]CookA,RobertsD,HendersonM,VanWinkleL,ChastainD,Hamill-RuthR.

Electronicpain questionnaires:arandomized,crossover comparisonwith paperquestionnairesforchronicpainassessment.Pain2004;110:310–7. [22]JamisonRN,GracelyRH,RaymondSA,etal.Comparativestudyofelectronicvs.

PaperVASratings:arandomized,crossovertrialusinghealthyvolunteers.Pain 2002;99:341–7.

[23]StinsonJ,PetrozG,FeldmanB,StreinerD,McGrathP,StevensB.e-Ouch: usabilitytesting ofanelectronicchronic paindiaryforadolescentswith arthritis.ClinJPain2006;22:295–305.

[24]LandisJT,KochGG.Themeasurementofobserveragreementforcategorical data.Biometrics1977;33:159–74.

[25]TasmaML,LouwerseMD,HehenkampWJ,etal. Misoprostolforcervical priming prior to hysteroscopy in postmenopausal and premenopausal nulliparouswomen;amulticentrerandomisedplacebocontrolledtrial.BJOG 2018;125:81–9.

[26]RiemmaG, SchiattarellaA,Colacurci N,etal. Pharmacologicaland non-pharmacologicalpainreliefforofﬁcehysteroscopy:anup-to-datereview. Climacteric2020;23:376–83.

[27] Amer-CuencaJJ,Marín-BuckA,VitaleSG,etal.Non-pharmacologicalpain controlinoutpatienthysteroscopies.MinimInvasive TherAlliedTechnol 2020;29:10–9.

[28]O’FlynnH, Murphy LL, AhmadG, Watson AJS. Pain relief inoutpatient hysteroscopy:asurveyofcurrentUKclinicalpractice.EurJObstetGynaecol ReprodBiol2011;154:9–15.