» Articles » PMID: 35614405

Hysteroscopic Management Versus Ultrasound-guided Evacuation for Women with First-trimester Pregnancy Loss, a Randomised Controlled Trial

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2022 May 25
PMID 35614405
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the hysteroscopic management of first-trimester pregnancy loss compared to surgical evacuation either blind or under ultrasonographic guidance‎.

Methods: This clinical trial included ‎315 women with first-trimester pregnancy loss, divided equally into three groups. Group 1 underwent traditional blind surgical evacuation, group 2 underwent ultrasound-guided evacuation, and group 3 underwent hysteroscopic management. All women were assessed for retained products, surgical complications, the need for further management, and pregnancy occurrence after evacuation within 2 years of follow up.

Results: The rate of presence of conception remnants and the need for further ‎treatment was significantly higher in group 1 compared to groups 2 and 3 (4.8% vs. 0% vs. 0%, P = 0.012). The conception rate within 2 years was significantly lower in group 1 compared to groups 2 and 3 (57.4% vs. 73.2% vs. 82.7%, P = 0.002), and the duration needed to conceive was significantly prolonged in group 1 compared to groups 2 and 3 (9.8 vs. 8.3 vs. 6.9 months, P < 0.001). Interestingly, women who underwent hysteroscopic management needed a significantly shorter time to conceive than those who underwent ultrasound-guided evacuation‎ (6.9 vs. 8.3 months, P = 0.006).

Conclusions: Hysteroscopic management of first-trimester pregnancy loss was superior to ultrasound-guided surgical evacuation regarding the time interval to conceive. Both techniques were superior to the blind evacuation technique regarding removal of the whole conception remnants, need for further treatment and fertility outcomes. Clinical trial registration: It was first registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 16/03/2017 with registration number NCT03081104.

Citing Articles

Case report: A rare but fatal complication of hysteroscopy-air embolism during treatment for missed abortion.

Ou Y, Li J, Tang R, Ma D, Liu Y Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1504884.

PMID: 39712181 PMC: 11659127. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1504884.


Reproductive surgery remains an essential element of reproductive medicine.

Urman B, Ata B, Gomel V Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2024; 16(2):145-162.

PMID: 38950529 PMC: 11366118. DOI: 10.52054/FVVO.16.2.022.


Operative hysteroscopy versus ultrasound-guided electric vacuum aspiration for removal of retained products of conception: A prospective cohort study.

Wagenaar L, van Vliet H, Radder C, Peters L, Weyers S, Schoot B Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2023; 20:100230.

PMID: 37701632 PMC: 10493502. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurox.2023.100230.

References
1.
. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 200 Summary: Early Pregnancy Loss. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 132(5):1311-1313. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002900. View

2.
. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 195: Prevention of Infection After Gynecologic Procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 131(6):e172-e189. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002670. View

3.
Capmas P, Lobersztajn A, Duminil L, Barral T, Pourcelot A, Fernandez H . Operative hysteroscopy for retained products of conception: Efficacy and subsequent fertility. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018; 48(3):151-154. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.12.005. View

4.
Smorgick N, Barel O, Fuchs N, Ben-Ami I, Pansky M, Vaknin Z . Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: meta-analysis and literature review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013; 173:19-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.11.020. View

5.
Sotiriadis A, Makrydimas G, Papatheodorou S, Ioannidis J . Expectant, medical, or surgical management of first-trimester miscarriage: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105(5 Pt 1):1104-13. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000158857.44046.a4. View