AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of in-office hysteroscopy with a see-and-treat approach with that of operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of retained products of conception (RPOC). METHODS: We retrospectively identified all consecutive patients who underwent hysteroscopic treatment of RPOC between 2015 and 2019. We excluded patients with RPOC larger than 2 cm at preoperative transvaginal ultrasounds. Between 2015 and 2017, all hysteroscopic removals of RPOC were performed by operative hysteroscopy. Between 2018 and 2019, all cases of RPOC less than 2 cm in size were hysteroscopically removed by the see-and-treat approach in the office setting. Sociodemographic, clinical, and procedure characteristics along with complications were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 119 women underwent hysteroscopic removal of RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm: 53 patients by in-office hysteroscopy, and 66 by operative hysteroscopy. The two groups were similar in preoperative characteristics. Although the time required to complete the RPOC removal was similar, the total procedure and assistant time were significantly higher in the operative hysteroscopy group (p < 0.001). Moreover, operative hysteroscopy was associated with a higher proportion of cases complicated by excessive bleeding, cervical tear, or uterine perforation (p = 0.016). Failure to complete the procedure was similarly reported in the two groups (p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In-office hysteroscopy with the see-and-treat approach for RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm appears as effective as operative hysteroscopy, but safer. In-office hysteroscopy may be considered the first choice for treating RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm.

See-and-treat in-office hysteroscopy versus operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of retained products of conception: A retrospective study

Calidona, Carmelo;Garzon, Simone;Uccella, Stefano;
2022

Abstract

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of in-office hysteroscopy with a see-and-treat approach with that of operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of retained products of conception (RPOC). METHODS: We retrospectively identified all consecutive patients who underwent hysteroscopic treatment of RPOC between 2015 and 2019. We excluded patients with RPOC larger than 2 cm at preoperative transvaginal ultrasounds. Between 2015 and 2017, all hysteroscopic removals of RPOC were performed by operative hysteroscopy. Between 2018 and 2019, all cases of RPOC less than 2 cm in size were hysteroscopically removed by the see-and-treat approach in the office setting. Sociodemographic, clinical, and procedure characteristics along with complications were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 119 women underwent hysteroscopic removal of RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm: 53 patients by in-office hysteroscopy, and 66 by operative hysteroscopy. The two groups were similar in preoperative characteristics. Although the time required to complete the RPOC removal was similar, the total procedure and assistant time were significantly higher in the operative hysteroscopy group (p < 0.001). Moreover, operative hysteroscopy was associated with a higher proportion of cases complicated by excessive bleeding, cervical tear, or uterine perforation (p = 0.016). Failure to complete the procedure was similarly reported in the two groups (p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In-office hysteroscopy with the see-and-treat approach for RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm appears as effective as operative hysteroscopy, but safer. In-office hysteroscopy may be considered the first choice for treating RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm.
hysteroscopy
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1070034
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact