Feasibility of Resectoscopic Operative Hysteroscopy in a UK Outpatient Clinic Using Local Anesthetic and Traditional Reusable Equipment, With Patient Experiences and Comparative Cost Analysis
Abstract Study Objective To assess procedural success, patient acceptability, and cost-saving potential of operative hysteroscopy using conventional equipment and local anesthetic in an outpatient clinic. Design Feasibility study/service evaluation (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). Setting...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 2014-09, Vol.21 (5), p.830-836 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 836 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 830 |
container_title | Journal of minimally invasive gynecology |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Penketh, Richard J.A., MD, FRCOG Bruen, Elizabeth M., RN, NH White, Judith, PhD Griffiths, Anthony N., MRCOG Patwardhan, Asmita, FRCOG, MD Lindsay, Peter, FRCOG Hill, Sarah, RGN Carolan-Rees, Grace, PhD, CSci |
description | Abstract Study Objective To assess procedural success, patient acceptability, and cost-saving potential of operative hysteroscopy using conventional equipment and local anesthetic in an outpatient clinic. Design Feasibility study/service evaluation (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). Setting Outpatient (office) clinic in a large UK teaching hospital. Patients One hundred eighteen women with diagnosed or suspected intrauterine myomas or polyps. Interventions Operative hysteroscopy (122 monopolar resection procedures using 8- or 10-mm diameter rigid resectoscopes with glycine solution for uterine irrigation) with the patient under local anesthesia in an outpatient (office) clinic. Measurements and Main Results Procedural success, duration of procedure, pathologic measurements, glycine irrigant deficit, patient pain scores and satisfaction, and comparative costs were recorded. Success of outpatient procedures was 90% (110 of 122 attempted), with a significantly reduced median procedure duration compared with a surgical setting using local (–7 minutes; p = .009) or general (−12.5 minutes; p < .001) anesthetic. Glycine irrigant absorption was low (median deficit, 0 mL), and no deficit was observed in 81% of patients. Mean (SD) estimated disease volume was comparable to that of hysteroscopic resection procedures in a surgical setting (3.38 [5.09] cm3 ), and weight was 1.8 (1.84) g. Patients tolerated the procedure well and reported low pain scores (highest median periprocedure pain measurement was 1.25 of 10), and 7-day follow-up satisfaction responses were positive. Retrospective cost analysis demonstrated that operative resection in an outpatient clinic was less expensive than in a surgical setting using general anesthetic (−$1003) or local anaesthetic (−$234). Reduced staff costs were the primary reason for this saving. Conclusions Operative hysteroscopic resection of myomas and polyps is feasible and well tolerated by patients in an outpatient/office setting using local anaesthetic and conventional equipment. The outpatient procedure is less expensive and its duration is shorter than in a surgical setting. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.013 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1561131142</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1553465014002088</els_id><sourcerecordid>1561131142</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-359c09d4f9c38efe670ac47a0c548d556cc912e06fb12f493b10558820b2a433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UsFu1DAQjRCIlsIPcEA-cuiGcexkEwkhVdG2Ray0qGzF0XKcSesliVPbqcjX9ddwdpceOHDyaOa9N555E0XvKcQUaPZpF-86fRcnQHkMLAbKXkSnNE3ZgmdZ8fI5TuEkeuPcDoAtAbLX0UnCs5zSLD-Nni5ROl3pVvuJmIbcoEPljVNm0IpsBrTS60ck15PzaPf5ieieSHL7jWxGP4Qy9p6Ure4D4dbp_o6sjZItuejR-Xv0IS37mmytrLXXpg-lGxydrFokq4dRD10QOCc_tb8n349yq9-hc4gUuj25NN0gj18pjfNBXLaT0-5t9KqRrcN3x_cs2l6utuX1Yr25-lperBeKU-oXLC0UFDVvCsVybDBbglR8KUGlPK_TNFOqoAlC1lQ0aXjBKgppmucJVInkjJ1FHw-ygzUPY5hLdNopbFvZoxmdoGlGKaOUJwGaHKAqrMtZbMRgdSftJCiI2TexE7NvYvZNABPBt0D6cNQfqw7rZ8pfowLg8wGAYchHjVY4td9PrW0wTNRG_1__yz90tTdMtr9wQrczow0LDXMIlwgQP-bLmQ-HcoAE8pz9AX_ewbE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1561131142</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Feasibility of Resectoscopic Operative Hysteroscopy in a UK Outpatient Clinic Using Local Anesthetic and Traditional Reusable Equipment, With Patient Experiences and Comparative Cost Analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Penketh, Richard J.A., MD, FRCOG ; Bruen, Elizabeth M., RN, NH ; White, Judith, PhD ; Griffiths, Anthony N., MRCOG ; Patwardhan, Asmita, FRCOG, MD ; Lindsay, Peter, FRCOG ; Hill, Sarah, RGN ; Carolan-Rees, Grace, PhD, CSci</creator><creatorcontrib>Penketh, Richard J.A., MD, FRCOG ; Bruen, Elizabeth M., RN, NH ; White, Judith, PhD ; Griffiths, Anthony N., MRCOG ; Patwardhan, Asmita, FRCOG, MD ; Lindsay, Peter, FRCOG ; Hill, Sarah, RGN ; Carolan-Rees, Grace, PhD, CSci</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Study Objective To assess procedural success, patient acceptability, and cost-saving potential of operative hysteroscopy using conventional equipment and local anesthetic in an outpatient clinic. Design Feasibility study/service evaluation (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). Setting Outpatient (office) clinic in a large UK teaching hospital. Patients One hundred eighteen women with diagnosed or suspected intrauterine myomas or polyps. Interventions Operative hysteroscopy (122 monopolar resection procedures using 8- or 10-mm diameter rigid resectoscopes with glycine solution for uterine irrigation) with the patient under local anesthesia in an outpatient (office) clinic. Measurements and Main Results Procedural success, duration of procedure, pathologic measurements, glycine irrigant deficit, patient pain scores and satisfaction, and comparative costs were recorded. Success of outpatient procedures was 90% (110 of 122 attempted), with a significantly reduced median procedure duration compared with a surgical setting using local (–7 minutes; p = .009) or general (−12.5 minutes; p < .001) anesthetic. Glycine irrigant absorption was low (median deficit, 0 mL), and no deficit was observed in 81% of patients. Mean (SD) estimated disease volume was comparable to that of hysteroscopic resection procedures in a surgical setting (3.38 [5.09] cm3 ), and weight was 1.8 (1.84) g. Patients tolerated the procedure well and reported low pain scores (highest median periprocedure pain measurement was 1.25 of 10), and 7-day follow-up satisfaction responses were positive. Retrospective cost analysis demonstrated that operative resection in an outpatient clinic was less expensive than in a surgical setting using general anesthetic (−$1003) or local anaesthetic (−$234). Reduced staff costs were the primary reason for this saving. Conclusions Operative hysteroscopic resection of myomas and polyps is feasible and well tolerated by patients in an outpatient/office setting using local anaesthetic and conventional equipment. The outpatient procedure is less expensive and its duration is shorter than in a surgical setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1553-4650</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1553-4669</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.013</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24681168</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Ambulatory Care Facilities ; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures ; Anesthesia, Local ; Anesthetics, Local ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Hysteroscopy ; Hysteroscopy - instrumentation ; Hysteroscopy - methods ; Leiomyoma - epidemiology ; Leiomyoma - surgery ; Obstetrics and Gynecology ; Office ; Outpatient ; Pain Measurement ; Pain, Postoperative - epidemiology ; Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control ; Patient Satisfaction ; Polyps - epidemiology ; Polyps - surgery ; Pregnancy ; Resection ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgery ; United Kingdom - epidemiology</subject><ispartof>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2014-09, Vol.21 (5), p.830-836</ispartof><rights>AAGL</rights><rights>2014 AAGL</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-359c09d4f9c38efe670ac47a0c548d556cc912e06fb12f493b10558820b2a433</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-359c09d4f9c38efe670ac47a0c548d556cc912e06fb12f493b10558820b2a433</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465014002088$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24681168$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Penketh, Richard J.A., MD, FRCOG</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruen, Elizabeth M., RN, NH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Judith, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffiths, Anthony N., MRCOG</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patwardhan, Asmita, FRCOG, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindsay, Peter, FRCOG</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Sarah, RGN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carolan-Rees, Grace, PhD, CSci</creatorcontrib><title>Feasibility of Resectoscopic Operative Hysteroscopy in a UK Outpatient Clinic Using Local Anesthetic and Traditional Reusable Equipment, With Patient Experiences and Comparative Cost Analysis</title><title>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</title><addtitle>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</addtitle><description>Abstract Study Objective To assess procedural success, patient acceptability, and cost-saving potential of operative hysteroscopy using conventional equipment and local anesthetic in an outpatient clinic. Design Feasibility study/service evaluation (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). Setting Outpatient (office) clinic in a large UK teaching hospital. Patients One hundred eighteen women with diagnosed or suspected intrauterine myomas or polyps. Interventions Operative hysteroscopy (122 monopolar resection procedures using 8- or 10-mm diameter rigid resectoscopes with glycine solution for uterine irrigation) with the patient under local anesthesia in an outpatient (office) clinic. Measurements and Main Results Procedural success, duration of procedure, pathologic measurements, glycine irrigant deficit, patient pain scores and satisfaction, and comparative costs were recorded. Success of outpatient procedures was 90% (110 of 122 attempted), with a significantly reduced median procedure duration compared with a surgical setting using local (–7 minutes; p = .009) or general (−12.5 minutes; p < .001) anesthetic. Glycine irrigant absorption was low (median deficit, 0 mL), and no deficit was observed in 81% of patients. Mean (SD) estimated disease volume was comparable to that of hysteroscopic resection procedures in a surgical setting (3.38 [5.09] cm3 ), and weight was 1.8 (1.84) g. Patients tolerated the procedure well and reported low pain scores (highest median periprocedure pain measurement was 1.25 of 10), and 7-day follow-up satisfaction responses were positive. Retrospective cost analysis demonstrated that operative resection in an outpatient clinic was less expensive than in a surgical setting using general anesthetic (−$1003) or local anaesthetic (−$234). Reduced staff costs were the primary reason for this saving. Conclusions Operative hysteroscopic resection of myomas and polyps is feasible and well tolerated by patients in an outpatient/office setting using local anaesthetic and conventional equipment. The outpatient procedure is less expensive and its duration is shorter than in a surgical setting.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Ambulatory Care Facilities</subject><subject>Ambulatory Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Local</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Local</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hysteroscopy</subject><subject>Hysteroscopy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Hysteroscopy - methods</subject><subject>Leiomyoma - epidemiology</subject><subject>Leiomyoma - surgery</subject><subject>Obstetrics and Gynecology</subject><subject>Office</subject><subject>Outpatient</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - epidemiology</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Polyps - epidemiology</subject><subject>Polyps - surgery</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Resection</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>United Kingdom - epidemiology</subject><issn>1553-4650</issn><issn>1553-4669</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UsFu1DAQjRCIlsIPcEA-cuiGcexkEwkhVdG2Ray0qGzF0XKcSesliVPbqcjX9ddwdpceOHDyaOa9N555E0XvKcQUaPZpF-86fRcnQHkMLAbKXkSnNE3ZgmdZ8fI5TuEkeuPcDoAtAbLX0UnCs5zSLD-Nni5ROl3pVvuJmIbcoEPljVNm0IpsBrTS60ck15PzaPf5ieieSHL7jWxGP4Qy9p6Ure4D4dbp_o6sjZItuejR-Xv0IS37mmytrLXXpg-lGxydrFokq4dRD10QOCc_tb8n349yq9-hc4gUuj25NN0gj18pjfNBXLaT0-5t9KqRrcN3x_cs2l6utuX1Yr25-lperBeKU-oXLC0UFDVvCsVybDBbglR8KUGlPK_TNFOqoAlC1lQ0aXjBKgppmucJVInkjJ1FHw-ygzUPY5hLdNopbFvZoxmdoGlGKaOUJwGaHKAqrMtZbMRgdSftJCiI2TexE7NvYvZNABPBt0D6cNQfqw7rZ8pfowLg8wGAYchHjVY4td9PrW0wTNRG_1__yz90tTdMtr9wQrczow0LDXMIlwgQP-bLmQ-HcoAE8pz9AX_ewbE</recordid><startdate>20140901</startdate><enddate>20140901</enddate><creator>Penketh, Richard J.A., MD, FRCOG</creator><creator>Bruen, Elizabeth M., RN, NH</creator><creator>White, Judith, PhD</creator><creator>Griffiths, Anthony N., MRCOG</creator><creator>Patwardhan, Asmita, FRCOG, MD</creator><creator>Lindsay, Peter, FRCOG</creator><creator>Hill, Sarah, RGN</creator><creator>Carolan-Rees, Grace, PhD, CSci</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140901</creationdate><title>Feasibility of Resectoscopic Operative Hysteroscopy in a UK Outpatient Clinic Using Local Anesthetic and Traditional Reusable Equipment, With Patient Experiences and Comparative Cost Analysis</title><author>Penketh, Richard J.A., MD, FRCOG ; Bruen, Elizabeth M., RN, NH ; White, Judith, PhD ; Griffiths, Anthony N., MRCOG ; Patwardhan, Asmita, FRCOG, MD ; Lindsay, Peter, FRCOG ; Hill, Sarah, RGN ; Carolan-Rees, Grace, PhD, CSci</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-359c09d4f9c38efe670ac47a0c548d556cc912e06fb12f493b10558820b2a433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Ambulatory Care Facilities</topic><topic>Ambulatory Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Local</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Local</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hysteroscopy</topic><topic>Hysteroscopy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Hysteroscopy - methods</topic><topic>Leiomyoma - epidemiology</topic><topic>Leiomyoma - surgery</topic><topic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</topic><topic>Office</topic><topic>Outpatient</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - epidemiology</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Polyps - epidemiology</topic><topic>Polyps - surgery</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Resection</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>United Kingdom - epidemiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Penketh, Richard J.A., MD, FRCOG</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruen, Elizabeth M., RN, NH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Judith, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffiths, Anthony N., MRCOG</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patwardhan, Asmita, FRCOG, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindsay, Peter, FRCOG</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Sarah, RGN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carolan-Rees, Grace, PhD, CSci</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Penketh, Richard J.A., MD, FRCOG</au><au>Bruen, Elizabeth M., RN, NH</au><au>White, Judith, PhD</au><au>Griffiths, Anthony N., MRCOG</au><au>Patwardhan, Asmita, FRCOG, MD</au><au>Lindsay, Peter, FRCOG</au><au>Hill, Sarah, RGN</au><au>Carolan-Rees, Grace, PhD, CSci</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Feasibility of Resectoscopic Operative Hysteroscopy in a UK Outpatient Clinic Using Local Anesthetic and Traditional Reusable Equipment, With Patient Experiences and Comparative Cost Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</addtitle><date>2014-09-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>830</spage><epage>836</epage><pages>830-836</pages><issn>1553-4650</issn><eissn>1553-4669</eissn><abstract>Abstract Study Objective To assess procedural success, patient acceptability, and cost-saving potential of operative hysteroscopy using conventional equipment and local anesthetic in an outpatient clinic. Design Feasibility study/service evaluation (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). Setting Outpatient (office) clinic in a large UK teaching hospital. Patients One hundred eighteen women with diagnosed or suspected intrauterine myomas or polyps. Interventions Operative hysteroscopy (122 monopolar resection procedures using 8- or 10-mm diameter rigid resectoscopes with glycine solution for uterine irrigation) with the patient under local anesthesia in an outpatient (office) clinic. Measurements and Main Results Procedural success, duration of procedure, pathologic measurements, glycine irrigant deficit, patient pain scores and satisfaction, and comparative costs were recorded. Success of outpatient procedures was 90% (110 of 122 attempted), with a significantly reduced median procedure duration compared with a surgical setting using local (–7 minutes; p = .009) or general (−12.5 minutes; p < .001) anesthetic. Glycine irrigant absorption was low (median deficit, 0 mL), and no deficit was observed in 81% of patients. Mean (SD) estimated disease volume was comparable to that of hysteroscopic resection procedures in a surgical setting (3.38 [5.09] cm3 ), and weight was 1.8 (1.84) g. Patients tolerated the procedure well and reported low pain scores (highest median periprocedure pain measurement was 1.25 of 10), and 7-day follow-up satisfaction responses were positive. Retrospective cost analysis demonstrated that operative resection in an outpatient clinic was less expensive than in a surgical setting using general anesthetic (−$1003) or local anaesthetic (−$234). Reduced staff costs were the primary reason for this saving. Conclusions Operative hysteroscopic resection of myomas and polyps is feasible and well tolerated by patients in an outpatient/office setting using local anaesthetic and conventional equipment. The outpatient procedure is less expensive and its duration is shorter than in a surgical setting.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>24681168</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.013</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1553-4650 |
ispartof | Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2014-09, Vol.21 (5), p.830-836 |
issn | 1553-4650 1553-4669 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1561131142 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Adult Aged Ambulatory Care Facilities Ambulatory Surgical Procedures Anesthesia, Local Anesthetics, Local Cost-Benefit Analysis Feasibility Studies Female Humans Hysteroscopy Hysteroscopy - instrumentation Hysteroscopy - methods Leiomyoma - epidemiology Leiomyoma - surgery Obstetrics and Gynecology Office Outpatient Pain Measurement Pain, Postoperative - epidemiology Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control Patient Satisfaction Polyps - epidemiology Polyps - surgery Pregnancy Resection Retrospective Studies Surgery United Kingdom - epidemiology |
title | Feasibility of Resectoscopic Operative Hysteroscopy in a UK Outpatient Clinic Using Local Anesthetic and Traditional Reusable Equipment, With Patient Experiences and Comparative Cost Analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T17%3A57%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Feasibility%20of%20Resectoscopic%20Operative%20Hysteroscopy%20in%20a%20UK%20Outpatient%20Clinic%20Using%20Local%20Anesthetic%20and%20Traditional%20Reusable%20Equipment,%20With%20Patient%20Experiences%20and%20Comparative%20Cost%20Analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20minimally%20invasive%20gynecology&rft.au=Penketh,%20Richard%20J.A.,%20MD,%20FRCOG&rft.date=2014-09-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=830&rft.epage=836&rft.pages=830-836&rft.issn=1553-4650&rft.eissn=1553-4669&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1561131142%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1561131142&rft_id=info:pmid/24681168&rft_els_id=S1553465014002088&rfr_iscdi=true |