Abstract
Pelvic exams are frequently complicated by collapse of the lateral vaginal walls, obstructing the view of the cervix. To overcome this, physicians frequently repurpose a glove or a condom as a sheath placed over the speculum blades to retract the lateral vaginal walls. Despite their regular use in clinical practice, little research has been done comparing the relative efficacy of these methods. Better visualization of the cervix can benefit patients by decreasing examination-related discomfort, improving cancer screening accuracy, and preventing the need to move the examination to the operating room under general anesthesia. This study presents a physical model that simulates vaginal pressure being exerted around a speculum. Using it, we conduct controlled experiments comparing the efficacy of different condom types, glove materials, glove sizes, and techniques to place gloves on the speculum. The results show that the best sheath is the middle finger of nitrile-material gloves. They provide adequate lateral wall retraction without significantly restricting the opening of the speculum. In comparison, condoms provide a smaller amount of retraction due to loosely fitting the speculum. They may still be a reasonable option for a different speculum size. However, vinyl-material gloves are an impractical option for sheaths; they greatly restrict speculum opening, occasionally even breaking the speculum, which overcome its retraction benefits. Glove size, condom brand, and condom material (latex vs polyisoprene) had minimal impact. This study serves as a guide for clinicians as they use easily accessible tools to perform difficult pelvic exams. We recommend that physicians consider nitrile gloves as the preferred option for a sheath around a speculum. Additionally, this study demonstrates proof-of-concept of a physical model that quantitatively describes different materials on their ability to improve cervical access. This model can be used in future research with more speculum and material combinations, including with materials custom-designed for vaginal retraction.
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference57 articles.
1. Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society;ETH Fontham;CA Cancer J Clin,2020
2. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement;US Preventive Services Task Force;JAMA,2018
3. Receipt of Pelvic Examinations Among Women Aged 15–44 in the United States, 1988–2017;GM Martinez;NCHS Data Brief,2019
4. The Challenging Pelvic Examination;CK Bates;J Gen Intern Med,2011
5. A FOUR-BLADED VAGINAL SPECULUM;S. Hanson;Calif West Med,1931