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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology 2022-02, Vol.62 (1), p.22-32 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
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 & 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 & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & 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 & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & 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 & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & 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 & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & 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 |