4.5 Review

Hysteroscopic Morcellation Versus Resection for the Treatment of Uterine Cavitary Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 867-877

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.04.013

Keywords

Hysteroscopy; Polyps; Uterine bleeding; Uterine leiomyoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review and meta-analysis compares hysteroscopic morcellation with electrosurgical resection to treat uterine cavitary lesions. A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted through August 18, 2015, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective studies, regardless of surgical indication and study language or sample size. Seven studies were eventually included (4 RCTs and 3 retrospective observational studies), enrolling 650 women. The meta-analysis showed that the total procedure time was significantly shorter for morcellation than for resection (weighted mean difference = 9.36 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -15.08 to -3.64). When reviewing RCTs only, intrauterine morcellation was associated with a smaller fluid deficit and lower odds of incomplete lesion removal. This difference was not statistically significant in observational studies. There was no significant difference in the odds of surgical complications (odds ratio = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.20-2.57) or the number of insertions (weighted mean difference = -3.04; 95% CI, -7.86-1.78). In conclusion, compared with hysteroscopic resection, hysteroscopic morcellation is associated with a shorter operative time and possibly lower odds of incomplete lesion removal. The certainty in evidence was limited by heterogeneity and the small sample size. (C) 2016 AAGL. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available