ReviewFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2018
Hysteroscopic tissue removal systems for the treatment of intrauterine pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of a hysteroscopic tissue removal system device for hysteroscopic myomectomy on patients' quality of life: a randomized clinical trial.BMC women's health · 2023Trial
- Manual morcellation (Resectr™ 9Fr) vs electromechanical morcellation (TruClear™) for hysteroscopic polypectomy: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Trial
- Food and Drug Administration Database Secondary Analysis: Difference in Operative Hysteroscopy Device Adverse Event Reporting.Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2025Article
- Role of mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal system in post-molar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia management: case report and literature review.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy study of the IBSWorld journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of Manual Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal Device for Intrauterine Polyps in Infertile Women in Both Operating and Office Settings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The role of hysteroscopy with morcellator without anesthesia in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2024Article
- Evaluation of whether there is residual polyp tissue after hysteroscopic morcellation at Cam and Sakura City Hospital: a retrospective cohort study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Hysteroscopic myomectomy with the IBS® Intrauterine Bigatti Shaver: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of the impact of rotational speed and aspiration flow rate.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2023Article
- HYSTEROSCOPIC MYOMECTOMY.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal or hysteroscopic morcellator: understanding the past to predict the future. A narrative review.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2021Article
- Complications associated with monopolar resectoscopic surgery.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2020Article
- Anesthesia-free In-office Hysteroscopic Morcellation for Endometrial Polyps: A Prospective Study.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
- Evaluation of Efficacy and Cost-effectiveness of Outpatient Resection of Endometrial Pathologies in a University Hospital in the UK.Journal of mid-life healthArticle
- Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Resection of Endometrial Polyps and Submucosal Fibroids in an Outpatient Setting in a Large District General Hospital in the UK.Journal of mid-life healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of mechanical tissue removal systems is more frequently implemented as the first line approach for the treatment of intrauterine pathology. Scientific evidence is provided that their use is easier and faster than the conventional resectoscope. It is necessary to objectively evaluate the results on tissue removal systems for the treatment of endometrial pathology as the reports in the literature are still conflicting.
objectiveTo review and compare mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal systems (Truclear®, Myosure® or IBS®) versus conventional bipolar and monopolar resectoscopy for the treatment of polyp and myoma removal. Operation time, completeness of tissue removal, complication rate, fluid deficit, tolerability and learning curve were evaluated.
methodsElectronic databases PubMed; Medline and Web of Science were searched for papers published from 1st January 2010 to 1st May 2019 using terms: ("hysteroscopic" or "hysteroscopy" or "hysteroscopic surgery") and ("myoma" or "polyps"). Studies were included if they were retrospective, observational and prospective randomized clinical controlled trials if they investigated the techniques between the tissue removal systems (Truclear®, Myosure® or IBS®) and conventional resectoscopy for the treatment of intrauterine pathology. Data were extracted from the included studies by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed by Rev Man 5 software (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Results: Overall, 498 patients were analysed from five studies in which there was no difference in age and size of pathology treated either by the hysteroscopic tissue removal systems and the conventional resectoscope. Hysteroscopic tissue removal systems showed a significantly higher success rate of complete endometrial pathology removal (P=0.002) and a significantly shorter operation time for polyp removal (P<0.0001) compared to conventional resectoscopy. No significant differences, in terms of complications rate, were found (P=0.09). The fluid deficit was significantly higher in the tissue removal system group, compared to conventional resectoscopy (P=0.02).
conclusionHysteroscopic tissue removal systems showed a major advantage in successful removal of the pathology and total operation time. It is likely that the tissue removal systems are more accessible and have a lower complication profile including perforation, via falsa and bleeding due to its specific action mechanism and shorter operation time but higher-quality trials will be required to confirm this hypothesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31367293PMC6658200What 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.