Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32696024›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2020

Complications associated with monopolar resectoscopic surgery.

George A Vilos, H Alshankiti, A G Vilos, B Asim Abu-Rafea, A Ternamian

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

George A VilosThe Fertility Clinic, London Health Sciences Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
H AlshankitiThe Fertility Clinic, London Health Sciences Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
A G VilosThe Fertility Clinic, London Health Sciences Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
B Asim Abu-RafeaThe Fertility Clinic, London Health Sciences Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
A TernamianSt. Joseph's Health Toronto, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto.
London Health Sciences Centre · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResectoscopic injuries to bowel and/or vessels, although rare, can be catastrophic, resulting in significant patient harm including death and can provoke medicolegal litigation.

objectiveTo examine indications, preoperative risk factors, perioperative findings and intervention, and clinical outcomes of resectoscopic injuries. MATERIALS AND

methodsEleven cases of resectoscopic complications were reviewed by one author (G.A.V.) for medicolegal purposes. After grouping of the complications, one case for each complication was selected, edited and reconstructed to reflect and highlight all potential complications associated with monopolar resectoscopes (26F, 9-mm) and nonconductive distending medium. Although these cases are reconstructed from actual complications, they do not reflect specific cases of medicolegal opinions and outcomes. Indications for resectoscopic surgery included abnormal uterine bleeding and/or infertility in premenopausal women.

resultsInjuries were associated with uterine perforation resulting in hemorrhage or bowel injury; urinary bladder injury without uterine perforation; and thermal injuries to lower genital tract and dispersive electrode site.

conclusionsResectoscopic complications are associated with any one or a combination of trauma during uterine access or intra-operatively, excessive fluid intravasation of distending medium or thermal injuries from applied energy. Uterine perforation in the presence of distorted anatomy (e.g. uterine fibroids) may be considered as a known and accepted complication. Lower genital tract and dispersive electrode site burn occur due to inherent design of monopolar resectoscopes. Appropriate intra- and post-operative intervention minimizes adverse clinical and medicolegal outcomes. Lack of post-operative vigilance and inappropriate delay in investigation and intervention is associated with adverse clinical and, potentially, unfavourable legal outcomes. WHAT IS NEW?: Reviewing resectoscopic complications raises awareness; provides insight for avoidance, recognition and timely intervention to minimise adverse clinical and medicolegal outcomes.

Indexed as

bowel injuryelectrosurgeryHysteroscopyresectoscopic complicationsuterine perforationvascular injury

Identifiers

PMID32696024
PMCPMC7363245
OpenAlexW3043957649

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.