Loading…

Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: A systematic review

Background The management of retained products of conception (RPOC) is not well standardised due to a lack of evidence‐based guidelines. Hysteroscopic resection has been proven to be safe and is hypothesised to have lower risk than dilation and curettage, but data comparing the two directly are limi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology 2022-02, Vol.62 (1), p.22-32
Main Authors: Taylor, Cassandra, Ellett, Lenore, Hiscock, Richard, Mooney, Samantha
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3605-baa8f021add5467fd8797b5cf37db8659ee6177303956a73a82895185ace0ee13
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3605-baa8f021add5467fd8797b5cf37db8659ee6177303956a73a82895185ace0ee13
container_end_page 32
container_issue 1
container_start_page 22
container_title Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology
container_volume 62
creator Taylor, Cassandra
Ellett, Lenore
Hiscock, Richard
Mooney, Samantha
description Background The management of retained products of conception (RPOC) is not well standardised due to a lack of evidence‐based guidelines. Hysteroscopic resection has been proven to be safe and is hypothesised to have lower risk than dilation and curettage, but data comparing the two directly are limited. Aim The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes for hysteroscopic resection for the management of RPOC in comparison to current standard management techniques. Methods A literature search was conducted in September 2019 using MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The key search terms were ‘hysteroscopy’/‘hysteroscopic resection’ and ‘retained products of conception’/‘RPOC’. Both prospective and retrospective studies were included. A total of 19 studies were included (n = 2314). Due to a critical risk of bias in all studies with a comparison arm, a meta‐analysis was not performed. Meta‐analysis techniques were still used to provide summary estimates for primary and secondary outcomes, including conception rate, time to conception, live birth rate, intrauterine adhesions (IUAs), surgical complications and future pregnancy complications. Results The overall conception rate for hysteroscopic resection was 81.1% (live birth rate 87.3%) compared to 65.4% for non‐hysteroscopic management (live birth rate 93.8%). After hysteroscopic resection the overall complication rate was 1.9% and the IUA rate was 6.8%. Conclusions Due to the poor quality and overall scarcity of comparative data, the question whether hysteroscopic resection is superior to traditional curettage for the management of RPOC remains unanswered. This review provides summary data, which will enable the design of adequately powered future studies.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/ajo.13455
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2595553164</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2595553164</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3605-baa8f021add5467fd8797b5cf37db8659ee6177303956a73a82895185ace0ee13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE9Lw0AQxRdRbK0e_AKSox7S7mb_Jd5KUasU6kHB27LZTCQlycZs0tJv79ZUb85lYPi9x7yH0DXBU-Jnpjd2Sijj_ASNCZNJGEfxxykaY4xZGAshRujCuQ3GJOGEnaMRZZKThEVj9Lrcuw5a64xtChNUutafUEHdBTYPWuh0UUMWNK3NetO5w9HY2kDTFba-D-aBO8gr3XltC9sCdpfoLNelg6vjnqD3x4e3xTJcrZ-eF_NVaKjAPEy1jnMcEZ1lnAmZZ7FMZMpNTmWWxoInAIJISTFNuNCSah_JPx9zbQADEDpBt4Ov_-2rB9epqnAGylLXYHunIp5wzikRzKN3A2p8TtdCrpq2qHS7VwSrQ4HKF6h-CvTszdG2TyvI_sjfxjwwG4BdUcL-fyc1f1kPlt9o2nqE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2595553164</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: A systematic review</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Taylor, Cassandra ; Ellett, Lenore ; Hiscock, Richard ; Mooney, Samantha</creator><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Cassandra ; Ellett, Lenore ; Hiscock, Richard ; Mooney, Samantha</creatorcontrib><description>Background The management of retained products of conception (RPOC) is not well standardised due to a lack of evidence‐based guidelines. Hysteroscopic resection has been proven to be safe and is hypothesised to have lower risk than dilation and curettage, but data comparing the two directly are limited. Aim The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes for hysteroscopic resection for the management of RPOC in comparison to current standard management techniques. Methods A literature search was conducted in September 2019 using MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The key search terms were ‘hysteroscopy’/‘hysteroscopic resection’ and ‘retained products of conception’/‘RPOC’. Both prospective and retrospective studies were included. A total of 19 studies were included (n = 2314). Due to a critical risk of bias in all studies with a comparison arm, a meta‐analysis was not performed. Meta‐analysis techniques were still used to provide summary estimates for primary and secondary outcomes, including conception rate, time to conception, live birth rate, intrauterine adhesions (IUAs), surgical complications and future pregnancy complications. Results The overall conception rate for hysteroscopic resection was 81.1% (live birth rate 87.3%) compared to 65.4% for non‐hysteroscopic management (live birth rate 93.8%). After hysteroscopic resection the overall complication rate was 1.9% and the IUA rate was 6.8%. Conclusions Due to the poor quality and overall scarcity of comparative data, the question whether hysteroscopic resection is superior to traditional curettage for the management of RPOC remains unanswered. This review provides summary data, which will enable the design of adequately powered future studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0004-8666</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1479-828X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13455</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34751942</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia</publisher><subject>dilation and curettage ; Female ; Humans ; hysteroscopy ; Hysteroscopy - adverse effects ; Hysteroscopy - methods ; intra uterine adhesions ; Pregnancy ; pregnancy complications ; products of conception ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Tissue Adhesions ; Uterine Diseases - surgery</subject><ispartof>Australian &amp; New Zealand journal of obstetrics &amp; gynaecology, 2022-02, Vol.62 (1), p.22-32</ispartof><rights>2021 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists</rights><rights>2021 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3605-baa8f021add5467fd8797b5cf37db8659ee6177303956a73a82895185ace0ee13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3605-baa8f021add5467fd8797b5cf37db8659ee6177303956a73a82895185ace0ee13</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5742-9148 ; 0000-0002-5859-0264</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34751942$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Cassandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellett, Lenore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hiscock, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mooney, Samantha</creatorcontrib><title>Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: A systematic review</title><title>Australian &amp; New Zealand journal of obstetrics &amp; gynaecology</title><addtitle>Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol</addtitle><description>Background The management of retained products of conception (RPOC) is not well standardised due to a lack of evidence‐based guidelines. Hysteroscopic resection has been proven to be safe and is hypothesised to have lower risk than dilation and curettage, but data comparing the two directly are limited. Aim The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes for hysteroscopic resection for the management of RPOC in comparison to current standard management techniques. Methods A literature search was conducted in September 2019 using MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The key search terms were ‘hysteroscopy’/‘hysteroscopic resection’ and ‘retained products of conception’/‘RPOC’. Both prospective and retrospective studies were included. A total of 19 studies were included (n = 2314). Due to a critical risk of bias in all studies with a comparison arm, a meta‐analysis was not performed. Meta‐analysis techniques were still used to provide summary estimates for primary and secondary outcomes, including conception rate, time to conception, live birth rate, intrauterine adhesions (IUAs), surgical complications and future pregnancy complications. Results The overall conception rate for hysteroscopic resection was 81.1% (live birth rate 87.3%) compared to 65.4% for non‐hysteroscopic management (live birth rate 93.8%). After hysteroscopic resection the overall complication rate was 1.9% and the IUA rate was 6.8%. Conclusions Due to the poor quality and overall scarcity of comparative data, the question whether hysteroscopic resection is superior to traditional curettage for the management of RPOC remains unanswered. This review provides summary data, which will enable the design of adequately powered future studies.</description><subject>dilation and curettage</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>hysteroscopy</subject><subject>Hysteroscopy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Hysteroscopy - methods</subject><subject>intra uterine adhesions</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>pregnancy complications</subject><subject>products of conception</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Tissue Adhesions</subject><subject>Uterine Diseases - surgery</subject><issn>0004-8666</issn><issn>1479-828X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE9Lw0AQxRdRbK0e_AKSox7S7mb_Jd5KUasU6kHB27LZTCQlycZs0tJv79ZUb85lYPi9x7yH0DXBU-Jnpjd2Sijj_ASNCZNJGEfxxykaY4xZGAshRujCuQ3GJOGEnaMRZZKThEVj9Lrcuw5a64xtChNUutafUEHdBTYPWuh0UUMWNK3NetO5w9HY2kDTFba-D-aBO8gr3XltC9sCdpfoLNelg6vjnqD3x4e3xTJcrZ-eF_NVaKjAPEy1jnMcEZ1lnAmZZ7FMZMpNTmWWxoInAIJISTFNuNCSah_JPx9zbQADEDpBt4Ov_-2rB9epqnAGylLXYHunIp5wzikRzKN3A2p8TtdCrpq2qHS7VwSrQ4HKF6h-CvTszdG2TyvI_sjfxjwwG4BdUcL-fyc1f1kPlt9o2nqE</recordid><startdate>202202</startdate><enddate>202202</enddate><creator>Taylor, Cassandra</creator><creator>Ellett, Lenore</creator><creator>Hiscock, Richard</creator><creator>Mooney, Samantha</creator><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><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5742-9148</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5859-0264</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202202</creationdate><title>Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: A systematic review</title><author>Taylor, Cassandra ; Ellett, Lenore ; Hiscock, Richard ; Mooney, Samantha</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3605-baa8f021add5467fd8797b5cf37db8659ee6177303956a73a82895185ace0ee13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>dilation and curettage</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>hysteroscopy</topic><topic>Hysteroscopy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Hysteroscopy - methods</topic><topic>intra uterine adhesions</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>pregnancy complications</topic><topic>products of conception</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Tissue Adhesions</topic><topic>Uterine Diseases - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Cassandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellett, Lenore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hiscock, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mooney, Samantha</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>Australian &amp; New Zealand journal of obstetrics &amp; gynaecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Taylor, Cassandra</au><au>Ellett, Lenore</au><au>Hiscock, Richard</au><au>Mooney, Samantha</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: A systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Australian &amp; New Zealand journal of obstetrics &amp; gynaecology</jtitle><addtitle>Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol</addtitle><date>2022-02</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>22</spage><epage>32</epage><pages>22-32</pages><issn>0004-8666</issn><eissn>1479-828X</eissn><abstract>Background The management of retained products of conception (RPOC) is not well standardised due to a lack of evidence‐based guidelines. Hysteroscopic resection has been proven to be safe and is hypothesised to have lower risk than dilation and curettage, but data comparing the two directly are limited. Aim The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes for hysteroscopic resection for the management of RPOC in comparison to current standard management techniques. Methods A literature search was conducted in September 2019 using MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The key search terms were ‘hysteroscopy’/‘hysteroscopic resection’ and ‘retained products of conception’/‘RPOC’. Both prospective and retrospective studies were included. A total of 19 studies were included (n = 2314). Due to a critical risk of bias in all studies with a comparison arm, a meta‐analysis was not performed. Meta‐analysis techniques were still used to provide summary estimates for primary and secondary outcomes, including conception rate, time to conception, live birth rate, intrauterine adhesions (IUAs), surgical complications and future pregnancy complications. Results The overall conception rate for hysteroscopic resection was 81.1% (live birth rate 87.3%) compared to 65.4% for non‐hysteroscopic management (live birth rate 93.8%). After hysteroscopic resection the overall complication rate was 1.9% and the IUA rate was 6.8%. Conclusions Due to the poor quality and overall scarcity of comparative data, the question whether hysteroscopic resection is superior to traditional curettage for the management of RPOC remains unanswered. This review provides summary data, which will enable the design of adequately powered future studies.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pmid>34751942</pmid><doi>10.1111/ajo.13455</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5742-9148</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5859-0264</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0004-8666
ispartof Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2022-02, Vol.62 (1), p.22-32
issn 0004-8666
1479-828X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2595553164
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects dilation and curettage
Female
Humans
hysteroscopy
Hysteroscopy - adverse effects
Hysteroscopy - methods
intra uterine adhesions
Pregnancy
pregnancy complications
products of conception
Prospective Studies
Retrospective Studies
Tissue Adhesions
Uterine Diseases - surgery
title Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: A systematic review
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T09%3A12%3A32IST&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=Hysteroscopic%20management%20of%20retained%20products%20of%20conception:%20A%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Australian%20&%20New%20Zealand%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20&%20gynaecology&rft.au=Taylor,%20Cassandra&rft.date=2022-02&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=22&rft.epage=32&rft.pages=22-32&rft.issn=0004-8666&rft.eissn=1479-828X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ajo.13455&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2595553164%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3605-baa8f021add5467fd8797b5cf37db8659ee6177303956a73a82895185ace0ee13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2595553164&rft_id=info:pmid/34751942&rfr_iscdi=true