Home > Journals > Minerva Ginecologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ginecologica 2017 June;69(3) > Minerva Ginecologica 2017 June;69(3):239-44



Publication history
Cite this article as


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

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.16.03991-5


language: English

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

top of page

Publication History

Issue published online: April 5, 2017
Article first published online: November 11, 2016
Manuscript accepted: October 20, 2016
Manuscript received: October 13, 2016

Cite this article as

De Franciscis P, Grauso F, Messalli EM, Schettino MT, Calagna G, Perino A, et al. Resectoscope versus small diameter hysteroscopy for endometrial polypectomy in patients with “unfavorable” cervix. Minerva Ginecol 2017;69:239-44. DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.16.03991-5

Corresponding author e-mail