Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2017, Vol. 44 Issue (5): 683-685    DOI: 10.12891/ceog3827.2017
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Office hysteroscopy for removal of retained products of conception: can we predict treatment outcome?
A. Cohen1, † *(), Y. Cohen1, †, S. Sualhi1, S. Rayman1, F. Azem1, G. Rattan1
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lis Maternity Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Download:  PDF
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Purpose of investigation: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of office hysteroscopy in the management of retained product of conception (RPOC) and to identify those predictors for treatment success. Study Design: A retrospective cohort study that was conducted in tertiary university-affiliated medical center. One hundred and eight women with sonographic findings of RPOC, who underwent seeand-treat hysteroscopy, were included in this study. Demographic data, indication for treatment, and preoperative patient characteristics and ultrasound findings were evaluated as predictors for treatment outcome. Results: Office-hysteroscopy was well tolerated by most of the patients (96%), with an overall success rate of 65%. Causes of treatment failure were: actual RPOC size (assessed during seeand-treat hysteroscopy), bleeding, and pain. In univariate analysis, none of the examined factors was shown to predict complete removal of RPOC. Furthermore, RPOC size assessed by ultrasound was not shown to be valuable predictors for treatment outcome. Conclusions: The efficacy of office hysteroscopy for removal of RPOC is limited. Ultrasound measurement of RPOC size should not be used as a predictor for treatment outcome.
Key words:  Hysteroscopy      Office hysteroscopy      Retained products of conception      See-and-treat hysteroscopy     
Published:  10 October 2017     
*Corresponding Author(s):  A. COHEN     E-mail:  co.aviad@gmail.com
About author:  † Co-first authors.

Cite this article: 

A. Cohen, Y. Cohen, S. Sualhi, S. Rayman, F. Azem, G. Rattan. Office hysteroscopy for removal of retained products of conception: can we predict treatment outcome?. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(5): 683-685.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog3827.2017     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2017/V44/I5/683

[1] G. Garuti, E. Castellacci, S. Calabrese, S. Calzolari. Hysteroscopic removal of retained products of conception withenhanced vascularity: a study of reliability[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 472-477.
[2] S. Coremans, J. Muys, J. De Winter, H. De Raedemaecker, Y. Jacquemyn. Ultrasound by midwives in the postpartum period: feasibility, reproducibility and midwives' perspectives[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(3): 348-354.
[3] S.B. Cohen, M. Shapira, A. Baron, J. Bouaziz, R. Mashiach, M. Goldenberg, R. Orvieto. Ultrasonography-guided hysteroscopic tubal catheterization of proximally occluded tubes - reproductive outcomes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 872-875.
[4] Y. Wang, F.Y. Luo, Y.D. Xia, L. Mei, L. Xie, H.X. Liu. Clinical analysis of 211 cases of cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 948-952.
[5] L. Giannella, K. Mfuta, L. B. Cerami, F. Boselli. Does uterine position affect pain intensity during outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(5): 787-791.
[6] A. Pontis, L. Nappi, F. Sorrentino, S. Angioni. Differential diagnosis of adenomyosis: the role of hysteroscopy and laparoscopy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 511-515.
[7] A. Le, L. Yang, Z. Wang, X. Y. Dai, T. H. Xiao, R. Zhuo, R. Yuan, T. Tulandi. Two cases of uterine and vaginal malformations[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 658-660.
[8] I. Rudic Biljic-Erski, M. Vasiljevic, S. Rakic, S. Mihajlovic, O.D. Smiljkovic. The impact of hysteroscopic myomectomy on fertility and pregnancy outcomes of infertile women according characteristics of submucous fibroids[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(2): 235-240.
[9] Lin-lin Guan, Hua-li Wang, Lan-zhou Jiao. Treatment of uterine artery pseudoaneurysm by embolization or hysteroscopy combined with laparoscopy: two case reports[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(6): 959-962.
[10] J.H. Check, E. Chang. No evidence to support the concept that endometrial polyps impair fertility in the majority of cases[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(2): 159-162.
[11] G. Garuti, S. Calabrese, G. Baudino, C. Reato, L. Quirino, M. Di Mario. Hysteroscopic removal of cesarean scar pregnancy after primary therapy with methotrexate: a case series[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(6): 856-861.
[12] M.K. Eken, F. Gungor Ugurlucan, G. Ilhan, E. Çöğendez, B. Devranoğlu, B. Keyif, A. Turfanda. Comparison of office hysteroscopy and dilatation & curettage regarding patient comfort, efficacy and quality of life in patients suffering from menorrhagia: prospective randomized study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(4): 599-604.
[13] I. Mazzon, A. Favilli, M. Grasso, V. Moretti, G. Soda, S. Gerli. Intramural uterine hemangioma: an insidious trap of a rare pathology. A case report[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(4): 624-626.
[14] T. Issat, J. Beta, M.A. Nowicka, A. Durczyński, A.J. Jakimiuk. Pain assessment during outpatient hysteroscopy using room temperature versus warm normal saline solution as a distention medium – a prospective randomized study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(3): 359-363.
[15] S. Esmaeilzadeh, M.A. Delavar, M.G. Andarieh. Do the types of treatments after hysteroscopic resection of septate uterus cause different results?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(2): 310-313.
No Suggested Reading articles found!