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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 2014-09, Vol.21 (5), p.830-836
Hauptverfasser: 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
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 &lt; .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 &amp; 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 &lt; .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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &lt; .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