ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2021
Mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal or hysteroscopic morcellator: understanding the past to predict the future. A narrative review.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of hysteroscopic cold -knife resection combined with dydrogesterone therapy on natural conception outcomes in women with endometrial polyps.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026Article
- Article
- Vaginoscopy approach with Mechanical Tissue Removal System for AUB inPediatric Aplastic Anemia: a case report.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Approach to abnormal uterine bleeding in presence of endometrial polyps with new hysteroscopic devices.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Food and Drug Administration Database Secondary Analysis: Difference in Operative Hysteroscopy Device Adverse Event Reporting.Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2025Article
- Conservative management of caesarean scar pregnancy: tissue removal device hysteroscopic treatment after uterine artery embolisation.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy study of the IBSWorld journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Abnormal uterine bleeding: The well-known and the hidden face.Journal of endometriosis and uterine disorders · 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
- 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
- Endometrial polypectomy using tissue removal device or electrosurgical snare: a randomised controlled trial.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2022Article
- Hysteroembryoscopy and hysteroscopic uterine evacuation of early pregnancy loss: A feasible procedure in selected cases.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2022Article
- Endometrial biopsy under direct hysteroscopic visualisation versus blind endometrial sampling for the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2022Article
- We should stop calling hysteroscopic tissue removal systems 'morcellators'.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, the available evidence revealed that mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal (mHTR) systems represent a safe and effective alternative to conventional operative resectoscopic hysteroscopy to treat a diverse spectrum of intrauterine pathology including endometrial polyps, uterine myomas, removal of placental remnants and to perform targeted endometrial biopsy under direct visualisation. This innovative technology simultaneously cuts and removes the tissue, allowing one to perform the procedure in a safer, faster and more effective way compared to conventional resectoscopic surgery.
objectiveTo review currently available scientific evidence concerning the use of mechanical hysteroscopic morcellators and highlight relevant aspects of the technology. MATERIAL AND
methodsA narrative review was conducted analysing the available literature regarding hysteroscopic tissue removal systems.
main outcome measuresCharacteristics of available mHTR systems, procedures they are used for, their performance including safety aspects and their comparison.
resultsA total of 7 hysteroscopic morcellators were identified. The diameter of the external sheet ranged from 5.25 to 9.0 mm, optics ranged from 0.8 to 6.3 mm with 0o angle. The cutter device diameter ranged from 2.9 to 4.5 mm most of them with rotation and reciprocation.
conclusionWe conclude that the adoption of mHTR has shown to reduce operating time, simultaneously cutting and suctioning tissue fragments avoiding the need for multiple removal and reinsertions of the device into the uterine cavity as well as reducing the volume of distension media required to complete the procedure compared to using the hysteroscopic resectoscope.
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.