Pain evaluation during gynaecological surveillance in women with Lynch syndrome

11Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

To evaluate perceived pain during repetitive annual endometrial sampling at gynaecologic surveillance in asymptomatic women with Lynch syndrome (LS) over time and in addition to symptomatic women without LS, undergoing single endometrial sampling. In this prospective study, 52 women with LS or first degree relatives who underwent repetitive annual gynaecological surveillance including endometrial sampling of which 33 were evaluated twice or more and 50 symptomatic women without LS who had single endometrial sampling, were included. Pain intensity was registered with VAS scores. Differences in pain intensities between subsequent visits (in LS) and between the two groups were evaluated. The use of painkillers before endometrial sampling was registered. If women with LS decided for preventive surgery, the reason was recorded. The LS group reported a median VAS score of 5.0 (range 0–10) at the first surveillance (n = 52) and at the second visit (n = 24). Women who repeatedly underwent endometrial sampling more often used painkillers for this procedure. During the study period 7/52 (13 %) women with LS choose for preventive surgery, another 4/52 (8 %) refused further endometrial sampling. Painful endometrial sampling was mentioned as main reason to quit screening. The median VAS score of the 50 symptomatic women was 5.0 (range 1–9). Endometrial sampling, irrespective of indication, is a painful procedure, with a median VAS score of 5.0. During subsequent procedures in women with LS, the median pain score does not aggravate although one in five women chose an alternative for endometrial sampling.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Helder-Woolderink, J., de Bock, G., Hollema, H., van Oven, M., & Mourits, M. (2017). Pain evaluation during gynaecological surveillance in women with Lynch syndrome. Familial Cancer, 16(2), 205–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-016-9937-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free