Office microlaparoscopy under local anesthesia for chronic pelvic pain

Steven F. Palter, David L. Olive
In: The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists · 1996 · vol. 3(3) , pp. 359–364 · doi:10.1016/s1074-3804(96)80064-8 · PMID:9050656 · W2012197506
article OA: hybrid CC0 ⤵ 47 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

Office microlaparoscopy under local anesthesia is a safe, effective, and less expensive alternative to traditional laparoscopy for evaluating chronic pelvic pain, although patients experience more pain during the procedure.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility, tolerance, and costs associated with a program of office laparoscopy under local anesthesia using fiberoptic microlaparoscopes (<2 mm) and accessory instrumentation (<2 mm) for the evaluation of patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP). DESIGN: Prospective, nonselected cohort study. SETTING: Office-based free-standing faculty practice at a tertiary care referral center. PATIENTS: All women with a history of CPP from February to June 1995 who required diagnostic laparoscopy were compared with a cohort of patients undergoing in office diagnostic laparoscopy for the evaluation of infertility during the same period. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent diagnostic office microlaparoscopy under local anesthesia (OLULA) with supplemental intravenous sedation, as well as conscious pain mapping. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A specific questionnaire was developed to follow all aspects of patient acceptance and tolerance of the procedures, and all patients were queried preoperatively, and 30 minutes and 1 week postoperatively. Pain was evaluated with a modification of the McGill pain inventory. A subset of questions evaluated the length of time until usual activities were resumed, anxiety level, and general acceptance of the procedure including set-up, operative time, and recovery time until discharge. Overall, there was a high degree of patient acceptance and satisfaction with OLULA; however, women with CPP experienced greater intraoperative and postoperative pain than those with infertility. Some patients with CPP had a generalized visceral hypersensitivity to pain; all areas of the pelvis and bowel were sensitive, and pain was not completely blocked with local anesthesia. Average procedure length was similar for the two groups. Patients with CPP required greater postoperative analgesia and took longer to return to work. Conscious pain mapping identified a focal source of pain in three patients and generalized visceral hypersensitivity in a majority of patients with CPP. Neither of these were found in patients with infertility. Compared with traditional laparoscopy there was almost an 80% reduction in costs. CONCLUSION: Office laparoscopy under local anesthesia is safe and effective for the evaluation of patients with CPP and is less expensive than traditional laparoscopy. Although the procedure is better tolerated by women undergoing infertility evaluation, it was well tolerated by both groups. Conscious pain mapping helps identify potential areas of pelvic pain and helps further characterize patients with CPP.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

chronic_pelvic_paininfertility

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (25)

Cited by (47)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK