ArticleOman medical journal2017
A Pilot Study Comparing Hysteroscopic Adhesiolysis by Conventional Resectoscope Versus Mini-resectoscope.
Article in Oman medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Diode Laser in Hysteroscopy for the Management of Intrauterine Pathology: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Comparison of Secondary Prevention Following Hysteroscopic Adhesiolysis in the Improvement of Reproductive Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Hysteroscopic Endometrial Ablation: From Indications to Instrumentation and Techniques-A Call to Action.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A Prospective Randomized Comparative Clinical trial of Hysteroscopic Septal Resection Using Conventional Resectoscope Versus Mini-resectoscope.Journal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the feasibility and efficacy of the mini-resectoscope with the conventional resectoscope in terms of the operative, menstrual, and reproductive outcome in hysteroscopic adhesiolysis in infertile women.
methodsWe conducted a parallel prospective randomized study at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. A total of 60 patients underwent hysteroscopic adhesiolysis using either conventional resectoscope (n = 30) or mini-resectoscope (n = 30). The primary outcome measures were pregnancy-related indicators. Secondary outcome measures were the operative parameters (cervical dilatation time, operation time, postoperative pain scores, fluid deficit, and preoperative and postoperative sodium levels), second-look hysteroscopy findings, and improvement in the menstrual pattern after surgery.
resultsCervical dilatation time and pain score 30 minutes after the procedure were significantly lower in the mini-resectoscope group. Out of the total 21 cases with hypomenorrhea, 12 cases (57.1%) started having normal menstrual flow postsurgery. All amenorrheic patients resumed menstruation after surgery. However, nine cases continued to have hypomenorrhea. Over long-term follow-up, 16 patients out of 60 had conceived (seven in the conventional resectoscope group and nine in the mini-resectoscope group). There were three ongoing pregnancies, three abortions, one ectopic pregnancy, and nine term pregnancies. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.
conclusionsThe use of mini-resectoscope for hysteroscopic adhesiolysis is associated with reduced operative morbidity. Use of the mini-resectoscope is an effective and safe alternative to the conventional system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.