4.7 Article

Reproductive Performance Following Hysteroscopic Surgery for Uterine Septum: Results from a Single Surgeon Data

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10010130

关键词

uterine septum; septum incision; pregnancy; live birth; infertility; miscarriage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that surgical treatment of uterine septum is beneficial in improving reproductive outcomes, even though there is controversy over the necessity of surgery. The retrospective observational study provides evidence that hysteroscopic incision may enhance reproductive performance in women with uterine septum, but high quality prospective studies are needed for further confirmation.
Uterine septum can negatively affect reproductive outcomes in women. Based on evidence from retrospective observational studies, hysteroscopic incision has been considered a solution to improve reproductive performance, however there has been recent controversy on the need for surgery for uterine septum. High quality evidence from prospective studies is still lacking, and until it is available, experts are encouraged to publish their data. We are therefore presenting our data that involves analysis of the patient characteristics, surgical approach and long-term reproductive outcomes of women who received treatment for uterine septum under the care of a single surgeon. This includes all women (99) who underwent hysteroscopic surgery for uterine septum between January 2001 and December 2019. Of those 99 women treated for intrauterine septum who were trying to conceive, 91.4% (64/70) achieved pregnancy, 78.6% (55/70) had live births and 8.6% (6/70) had miscarriages. No statistically significant difference was found in the live birth rates when data was analyzed in subgroups based on age, reason for referral/aetiology and severity of pathology. Our study results support the view that surgical treatment of uterine septa is beneficial in improving reproductive outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据