|Cite this article as|
Total amount: € 0,00
HOW TO ORDER
A Journal on Obstetrics and Gynecology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index
Minerva Ginecologica 2017 June;69(3):239-44
Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA
Resectoscope versus small diameter hysteroscopy for endometrial polypectomy in patients with “unfavorable” cervix
Pasquale DE FRANCISCIS 1 ✉, Flavio GRAUSO 1, Enrico M. MESSALLI 1, Maria T. SCHETTINO 1, Gloria CALAGNA 2, Antonino PERINO 2, Nicola COLACURCI 1, Marco TORELLA 1
1 Department of Woman, Child and of General and Specialist Surgery, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy; 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare resectoscopic and small-diameter hysteroscopic techniques for endometrial polypectomy in patients with “unfavorable” cervix.
METHODS: Eighty women with a single 2-4 cm sized endometrial polyp, with unfavorable cervical anatomical conditions were enrolled in the study. Forty patients were treated with a 26F resectoscope requiring cervical dilatation (group A), forty patients were treated with a 5-mm hysteroscope requiring vaginoscopic approach (group B). Operative time, fluid absorption, complications, instrument failure, postoperative pain, overnight stay were analyzed. Operative visualization, operative difficulty and overall surgeon’s satisfaction were assessed with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).
RESULTS: Operative time was significantly longer in group A than in group B (18.3±7.4 vs. 11.3±5.2 minutes), the cumulative complication rate and the need of postoperative analgesics were higher in group A than in group B. VAS of surgical difficulty and surgeon’s satisfaction were higher in group B than in group A.
CONCLUSIONS: The small-diameter hysteroscopy is a safe and effective approach for endometrial polyp up to 4 cm in patients with unfavorable cervical canal at risk of cervical injury.
KEY WORDS: Hysteroscopy - Cervix uteri - Complications