Affiliation:
1. Carle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States of America
2. Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, United States of America
Abstract
AbstractPURPOSE 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. METHODS This study presents a physical model that simulates vaginal pressure being exerted around a speculum. Using it, we then compare the efficacy of different condom types, glove materials, glove sizes, and application methods onto the speculum. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSION 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
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference56 articles.
1. Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society;Fontham ETH;CA Cancer J Clin,2020
2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320: 674–686. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.10897
3. Receipt of Pelvic Examinations Among Women Aged 15–44 in the United States, 1988–2017;Martinez GM;NCHS Data Brief,2019
4. The Challenging Pelvic Examination;Bates CK;J Gen Intern Med.,2011
5. Hanson S. A FOUR-BLADED VAGINAL SPECULUM. Calif West Med. 1931;35: 451. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1658037/