Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37039805›Full record

ArticleJAMA2023

Operative Hysteroscopy vs Vacuum Aspiration for Incomplete Spontaneous Abortion: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Cyrille Huchon, Hocine Drioueche, Martin Koskas, Aubert Agostini, Estelle Bauville, Nicolas Bourdel, Hervé Fernandez, Xavier Fritel, Olivier Graesslin, Guillaume Legendre and 6 more

Erratum issued 3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT02201732 nacompletednot on this map

Assessment of the Effectiveness of Hysteroscopy in the Treatment of Intrauterine Trophoblastic Retentions

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2014 to 2020Enrolled577ConditionsIncomplete MiscarriageArmsHysteroscopy, Curettage
NCT07143578 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Comparison Of Surgical Management Of Early Pregnancy Loss By Suction Curettage Versus Hysteroscopy In Patients Undergoing In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssaf-Harofeh Medical CenterRan2025 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsEarly Abortion, Pregnancy Loss, EarlyArmsOperative hysteroscopy using tissue removal device, suction curettage
NCT07206342 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of the Non-inferiority of Resorbable Gelatin Embolization Compared to Embolization Combined With Endometrial Aspiration for the Management of Hemorrhagic Uterine Vascular Abnormalities Following Premature Termination of Pregnancy

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, GrenobleRan2026 to 2028Enrolled110ConditionsHemorrhage, Obstetric, Uterine Abnormality, Uterine Artery Embolization, Vaginal Bleeding During PregnancyArmsembolization therapy, embolization followed by aspiration
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The paradox of early pregnancy care: Overtreatment amid systemic neglect.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Cyrille HuchonDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, APHP, Hopital Lariboisière, University of Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Hocine DriouecheDepartment of Clinical Research, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy-Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Poissy, France.
Martin KoskasUniversité Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Unité de Recherche 7285, Risques Cliniques et Sécurité en Santé des Femmes et en Santé Périnatale (RISCQ), Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
Aubert AgostiniDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hôpital La Conception, Marseille CEDEX 5, France.
Estelle BauvilleDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes CEDEX 2, France.
Nicolas BourdelDepartment of Gynecologic Surgery, CHU Estaing Clermont Ferrand, 63058 Clermont Ferrand CEDEX 1, Faculty of Medicine, ISIT - Université d'Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Hervé FernandezDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, AP-HP, Hôpital Bicêtre, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, 94270, France.
Xavier FritelDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, CHU de Poitiers, Université de Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et Pharmacie, Inserm CIC1402, Poitiers, France.
Olivier GraesslinDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hôpital Alix de Champagne, CHU de Reims, Reims, France.
Guillaume LegendreDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, CHU d'Angers, Angers CEDEX 01, France.
Jean-Philippe LucotDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hôpital Jeanne-de-Flandre, CHRU de Lille, Lille, France.
Pierre PanelDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Centre Hospitalier de Versailles, Le Chesnay, France.
Cyril RaiffortDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, APHP, Hôpital Louis Mourier, Département Hospitalier Universitaire Risque et Grossesse, Colombes, University of Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Géraldine GiraudetDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hôpital Jeanne-de-Flandre, CHRU de Lille, Lille, France.
Laurence BussièresClinical Unit Research/Clinic Investigation Center, Paris Descartes, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Arnaud FauconnierUniversité Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Unité de Recherche 7285, Risques Cliniques et Sécurité en Santé des Femmes et en Santé Périnatale (RISCQ), Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
Université Paris Cité · FRCentre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy · FRAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRBicêtre Hospital · FRCentre Hospitalier de Versailles · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes · FRHôpital de la Conception · FRHôpital Jeanne de Flandre · FRInstitut Oenologique de Champagne (France) · FRUniversité de Poitiers · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Vacuum aspiration is commonly used to remove retained products of conception in patients with incomplete spontaneous abortion. Scarring of the uterine cavity may occur, potentially impairing future fertility. A procedural alternative, operative hysteroscopy, has gained popularity with a presumption of better future fertility. Objective: To assess the superiority of hysteroscopy to vacuum aspiration for subsequent pregnancy in patients with incomplete spontaneous abortion who intend to have future pregnancy. Design, Setting, and Participants: The HY-PER randomized, controlled, single-blind trial included 574 patients between November 6, 2014, and May 3, 2017, with a 2-year duration of follow-up. This multicenter trial recruited patients in 15 French hospitals. Individuals aged 18 to 44 years and planned for surgery for an incomplete spontaneous abortion with plans to subsequently conceive were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Interventions: Surgical treatment by hysteroscopy (n = 288) or vacuum aspiration (n = 286). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a pregnancy of at least 22 weeks' duration during 2-year follow-up. Results: The intention-to-treat analyses included 563 women (mean [SD] age, 32.6 [5.4] years). All aspiration procedures were completed. The hysteroscopic procedure could not be completed for 19 patients (7%), 18 of which were converted to vacuum aspiration (8 with inability to completely resect, 7 with insufficient visualization, 2 with anesthetic complications that required a shortened procedure, 1 with equipment failure). One hysteroscopy failed due to a false passage during cervical dilatation. During the 2-year follow-up, 177 patients (62.8%) in the hysteroscopy group and 190 (67.6%) in the vacuum aspiration (control) group achieved the primary outcome (difference, -4.8% [95% CI, -13% to 3.0%]; P = .23). The time-to-event analyses showed no statistically significant difference between groups for the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.07]). Duration of surgery and hospitalization were significantly longer for hysteroscopy. Rates of new miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, Clavien-Dindo surgical complications of grade 3 or above (requiring surgical, endoscopic, or radiological intervention or life-threatening event or death), and reinterventions to remove remaining products of conception did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Surgical management by hysteroscopy of incomplete spontaneous abortions in patients intending to conceive again was not associated with more subsequent births or a better safety profile than vacuum aspiration. Moreover, operative hysteroscopy was not feasible in all cases. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02201732.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousPregnancy, EctopicAdultFemaleHumansHysteroscopyPregnancySingle-Blind MethodVacuum Curettage

Identifiers

PMID37039805
PMCPMC10091175
OpenAlexW4364353705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.