Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31367293›Full record

ReviewFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2018

Hysteroscopic tissue removal systems for the treatment of intrauterine pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

X Yin, J Cheng, S H Ansari, R Campo, W Di, W Li, G Bigatti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Clinical efficacy study of the IBSWorld journal of surgical oncology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. HYSTEROSCOPIC MYOMECTOMY.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

X YinSino European Life Expert Centre-Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
J ChengSino European Life Expert Centre-Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
S H AnsariDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Day General Hospital, Tehran, Iran.
R CampoLife Expert Centre, Leuven, Belgium.
W DiSino European Life Expert Centre-Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
W LiSino European Life Expert Centre-Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
G BigattiSino European Life Expert Centre-Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Hysteroscopic ShaverMeta-analysisMyomaMyosure®PolypSystem ReviewTruclear®

Identifiers

PMID31367293
PMCPMC6658200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.