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.
BACKGROUND: 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. 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 post-operative analgesics were higher in group A than in group B. Visual analogue scale 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.
Resectoscope versus small diameter hysteroscopy for endometrial polypectomy in patients with "unfavorable" cervix
DE FRANCISCIS, Pasquale;MESSALLI, Enrico Michelino;COLACURCI, Nicola;TORELLA, Marco
2017
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. 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 post-operative analgesics were higher in group A than in group B. Visual analogue scale 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.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
