Hysteroscopic Management of Retained Products of Conception
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 173 (2014) 19–22 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology jou rnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejogrb Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: meta-analysis and literature review Noam Smorgick *, Oshri Barel, Noga Fuchs, Ido Ben-Ami, Moty Pansky, Zvi Vaknin Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofe Medical Center, Affiliated with the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history: Objective: Hysteroscopic removal of retained products of conception (RPOC) may allow complete Received 15 August 2013 removal of RPOC and decreased rates of intrauterine adhesions (IUA) when compared to the traditional Received in revised form 1 November 2013 blind curettage. The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the current evidence regarding the use of Accepted 20 November 2013 hysteroscopy for treatment of RPOC. Study design: A literature search was conducted in December 2012 using MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials. Keywords: The study selection criteria were use of the standard hysteroscopic technique for removal of RPOC in 5 or Retained products of conception more cases, in any study design. We reviewed 11 studies, of which 5 retrospective studies met the Hysteroscopy selection criteria (comprising 326 cases). The rates of incomplete RPOC removal, surgical complications, post-operative IUA and subsequent pregnancies were abstracted and weighted events rates using a fixed meta-analysis model were calculated. Results: Only one study compared the rates of IUA following hysteroscopy and curettage, precluding a meta-analysis comparison of the two techniques. There were no cases of incomplete RPOC removal. Three perioperative complications occurred (uterine perforation, infection, and vaginal bleeding). IUA on follow-up hysteroscopy were found in 4/96 women (weighted rate of 5.7%, 95% CI 2.4%, 13.0%). Of the 120 women desiring a subsequent pregnancy 91 conceived (weighted rate of 75.3%, 95% CI 66.7%, 82.3%). Conclusions: The lack of traditional curettage comparison groups in most studies precludes the conclusion that hysteroscopy is superior to traditional curettage, but this procedure does appear to have low complication rates, low rates of IUA, and high rates of subsequent pregnancies. ß 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In 1997, Goldenberg et al. [4] reported on the use of hysteroscopy for treatment of RPOC. Since that time, additional Retained products of conception (RPOC) may occur after studies have reported increasing experience with this technique medical and surgical pregnancy termination, miscarriage, and [5–8]. Using this approach, the uterine cavity is first evaluated vaginal or cesarean delivery [1]. Short-term complications of RPOC and areas with suspected RPOC are identified (Fig. 1). Subse- include bleeding and infections, while long-term complications quently, using the loop of the resectoscope as a curette, the RPOC include formation of intrauterine adhesions (IUA, also called are gently and selectively separated from the underlying Asherman’s syndrome) which may significantly affect future endometrium. During this procedure, the use of electrosurgery reproductive outcomes due to infertility, miscarriages and is very limited and avoided if possible, with the goal of pregnancy complications such as placenta accreta [2]. The minimizing thermal damage to the endometrium. This surgical pathogenesis of IUA formation is complex and involves trauma approach has the theoretical advantage of reduced trauma to the to the endometrium as well as the hypoestrogenic state common in endometrium, and possibly reduced rates of IUA and improved the puerperal period. The traditional surgical treatment of RPOC future reproductive outcomes. Additional advantages may be with dilatation and curettage may further contribute to the complete removal of RPOC without the need for a second endometrial trauma [3]. procedure, and identification and treatment of uterine cavity anomalies, which are sometime the underlying cause of RPOC [5]. The aim of this study is to examine the current evidence * Corresponding author at: Gynecologic Endoscopy Unit, Departments of regarding the use of hysteroscopy for treatment of RPOC in a meta- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofe Medical Center, Zerifin 70300, Israel. analysis design. A secondary aim is to compare outcomes of Tel.: +972 8 9779000; fax: +972 8 9778026. E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Smorgick). traditional curettage with the hysteroscopic technique. 0301-2115/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.11.020 20 N. Smorgick et al. / European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 173 (2014) 19–22 2.3. Data analysis The hysteroscopy treatment group consisted of patients who underwent hysteroscopic removal of RPOC. We reviewed the included studies and abstracted the number of cases in each study with the main outcomes, defined as intraoperative uterine perforations, other intraoperative complications (defined as infections, significant bleeding, and fluid overload), postoperative IUA in patients who underwent a second-look office hysteroscopy, subsequent pregnancies in those patients who planned to conceive, and number of patients who required a second operative procedure due to incomplete removal of RPOC. These numbers were then analyzed to calculate overall weighted prevalence rates, standard deviations and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed meta-analysis model for each of these outcomes. The rates of subsequent pregnancies in women undergoing hysteroscopy Fig. 1. Hysteroscopic image of retained products of conception in a patient versus curettage were compared with odds ratio and 95% CI. presenting 2 months after delivery. There was only one study that assessed rates of IUA in patients undergoing hysteroscopy versus suction and curettage, and we were therefore unable to calculate the odds ratio for this 2. Methods complication based on this systematic review. Statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS software version 20 (SPSS Inc., 2.1. Search strategy Chicago, IL, USA) and Comprehensive meta-analysis software version 2.2 (Biostat, NJ, USA). A literature search was conducted in December 2012 using MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials. The search terms used included 3. Results ‘‘retained products of conception’’, ‘‘residual trophoblastic tissue’’, ‘‘placental remnant’’ and ‘‘hysteroscopy*’’, which were combined Using our search criteria, 11 studies in the English language using the Boolean operators ‘‘AND’’ or ‘‘OR’’. No time limits were reporting on the use of hysteroscopy for treatment of RPOC were placed on the searches. Only studies in the English language were identified. Of those, five case reports describing four patients or reviewed. References of selected studies were also examined for fewer were excluded. In addition, one study reporting on the use additional relevant literature not found by the initial database of hysteroscopy in the office setting without anesthesia was searches. excluded [9]. That study described the use of the hysteroscopic grasper introduced in the working channel of the hysteroscope to 2.2. Study selection remove RPOC, as opposed to the resectoscope loop used in all the other included studies. The remaining five studies were included We included studies describing the use of hysteroscopy for in the meta-analysis [4–8]. All included studies are of the removal of RPOC in 5 or more cases, using the standard retrospective cohort design (Table 1). Three studies report the hysteroscopic technique described above. Due to the paucity of outcomes of patients treated by hysteroscopy alone [4,6,8], and available data, we included retrospective and prospective studies, two compare the outcomes of patients treated by hysteroscopy cohort and case-control studies, as well as studies with a single and traditional suction and curettage in a retrospective non- treatment group (hysteroscopy) and treatment–control groups randomized design [5,7]. In total, 326 patients underwent (i.e., studies comparing hysteroscopy and traditional suction and hysteroscopic removal of RPOC and were included in this meta- curettage). analysis. Table 1 Description of studies included in the meta-analysis describing hysteroscopic treatment of retained products of conception. a First author Study period Treatment groups Case number Type of pregnancy Goldenberg [4] NA Hysteroscopy 18 88.9% – Surgical termination 11.1% – Delivery Cohen [5] 1/1997–1/2000 Hysteroscopy 46 72.9% – Surgical termination Curettage 24 27.1% – Delivery Faivre [6] 10/1999–9/2006 Hysteroscopy 50 36.0% – Spontaneous abortion 26.0% – Surgical termination 22.0% – Medical termination 16.0% – Delivery Rein [7] 2/2004–1/2007 Hysteroscopy 53 92.6% – Surgical termination Curettage 42 7.4% – Delivery Golan [8] 1/2001–8/2007 Hysteroscopy 159 55.3% – Surgical termination 27.0% – Medical termination 17.6% – Delivery Total Hysteroscopy 326 Abbreviation: NA, not available. a Type of pregnancy – refers to the type of pregnancy after which the RPOC was diagnosed. Delivery refers to either vaginal or cesarean delivery at term. Surgical termination refers to curettage performed for spontaneous abortion or termination of pregnancy. Medical termination refers to medical termination of pregnancy by RU486