The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2020
Comparison of endometrial polyp recurrence in fertile women after office hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy using two widely spread techniques.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ceci Oronzo, Franchini Mario, Cardinale Silvia, Cannone Rossella, Giarrè Giovanna, Fascilla Fabiana D, Bettocchi Stefano, Cicinelli Ettore
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the recurrence of benign endometrial polyps after office hysteroscopic polypectomy performed with a bipolar electrode (BE) or a small diameter hysteroscopic tissue removal system (HTRs).
METHODS: From July 2018 to December 2019 we evaluated the charts of 114 asymptomatic fertile women who underwent office hysteroscopic polypectomy, 1 year before, for a single large benign endometrial polyp (size between 10 and 20 mm) using a 4 mm continuous flow hysteroscope with a BE or a 5 mm HTRs. Patients, divided into two groups according to surgical procedure, each performed exclusively by one expert gynecologist, were scheduled for a 12-month postoperative transvaginal sonography to evaluate the recurrence of endometrial polyps.
RESULTS: Forty-eight women of the BE group and 42 of the HTRs group were considered for the 1-year transvaginal sonography follow-up. Five polyps were identified in the BE group and three in the HTRs group (5/48 vs 3/42, P = n.s.). All polyps were removed hysteroscopically (in three out of five and in two out of three cases, respectively, in the same places of the previous polypectomy) and evaluated as 'benign' by the pathologist.
CONCLUSION: Office hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy with small HTRs compared to BE revealed at a 1-year follow-up no difference in terms of complete removal and recurrence of polyps. HTRs polypectomy resulted in less pain and significantly quicker time of procedure compared to BE. This data should be kept in mind for patient comfort any time hysteroscopic polypectomy is planned in an office setting.
METHODS: From July 2018 to December 2019 we evaluated the charts of 114 asymptomatic fertile women who underwent office hysteroscopic polypectomy, 1 year before, for a single large benign endometrial polyp (size between 10 and 20 mm) using a 4 mm continuous flow hysteroscope with a BE or a 5 mm HTRs. Patients, divided into two groups according to surgical procedure, each performed exclusively by one expert gynecologist, were scheduled for a 12-month postoperative transvaginal sonography to evaluate the recurrence of endometrial polyps.
RESULTS: Forty-eight women of the BE group and 42 of the HTRs group were considered for the 1-year transvaginal sonography follow-up. Five polyps were identified in the BE group and three in the HTRs group (5/48 vs 3/42, P = n.s.). All polyps were removed hysteroscopically (in three out of five and in two out of three cases, respectively, in the same places of the previous polypectomy) and evaluated as 'benign' by the pathologist.
CONCLUSION: Office hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy with small HTRs compared to BE revealed at a 1-year follow-up no difference in terms of complete removal and recurrence of polyps. HTRs polypectomy resulted in less pain and significantly quicker time of procedure compared to BE. This data should be kept in mind for patient comfort any time hysteroscopic polypectomy is planned in an office setting.