BMC surgery · 2025
No differences in IVF pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic polypectomy using a manual hysteroscopic tissue removal device versus conventional resection.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Chen, Peng Yangqin, Wang Qinmei, Dong Yu, Liu Huimin, Yao Yaoshan, Li Yuan, Lin Ge, Gong Fei, Parry J Preston, Pereira Nigel, Morgan India, Lindheim Steven R, Chen Hui
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) pregnancy outcomes following endometrial polypectomy using either a manual mechanical hysteroscopic tissue resection device (mHTR) or traditional mechanical resection with scissors or polyp graspers resection.
METHODS: This retrospective study examined 189 infertile patients who had undergone polypectomy prior to IVF-ET at Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-XIANGYA. Patients undergoing polypectomy using manual mHTR resection were compared to those having the procedure through traditional mechanical resection. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) following the first ET after hysteroscopic polypectomy. Secondary outcomes included miscarriage rates and the optimal time interval from polyp resection to ET.
RESULTS: One-hundred eleven (58.7%) patients underwent polypectomy via manual mHTR while 78 (41.3%) patients underwent traditional mechanical resection for polypectomy. Following the first ET, the positive pregnancy rate (80.2% vs. 79.5%; p = 1.000), CPR (70.3% vs. 74.4%; p = 0.652), and MR (11.5% vs. 12.1%; p = 1.000) were similar between those undergoing mHTR and traditional mechanical resection. After stratifying by the number of menstrual cycles from procedure (after next menses; 2 to 3 menstrual cycles; and > 3 menstrual cycles later), there was no differences in CPR when comparing the time from polypectomy and resection type.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests no differences in IVF pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic polypectomy regardless of surgical type using manual mHTR or traditional mechanical resection and the timing from resection.
METHODS: This retrospective study examined 189 infertile patients who had undergone polypectomy prior to IVF-ET at Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-XIANGYA. Patients undergoing polypectomy using manual mHTR resection were compared to those having the procedure through traditional mechanical resection. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) following the first ET after hysteroscopic polypectomy. Secondary outcomes included miscarriage rates and the optimal time interval from polyp resection to ET.
RESULTS: One-hundred eleven (58.7%) patients underwent polypectomy via manual mHTR while 78 (41.3%) patients underwent traditional mechanical resection for polypectomy. Following the first ET, the positive pregnancy rate (80.2% vs. 79.5%; p = 1.000), CPR (70.3% vs. 74.4%; p = 0.652), and MR (11.5% vs. 12.1%; p = 1.000) were similar between those undergoing mHTR and traditional mechanical resection. After stratifying by the number of menstrual cycles from procedure (after next menses; 2 to 3 menstrual cycles; and > 3 menstrual cycles later), there was no differences in CPR when comparing the time from polypectomy and resection type.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests no differences in IVF pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic polypectomy regardless of surgical type using manual mHTR or traditional mechanical resection and the timing from resection.