Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37701632›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2023

Operative hysteroscopy versus ultrasound-guided electric vacuum aspiration for removal of retained products of conception: A prospective cohort study.

Liselot P Wagenaar, Hubertus A van Vliet, Celine M Radder, Louisette W Peters, Steven Weyers, Benedictus C Schoot, Tjalina W Hamerlynck

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The paradox of early pregnancy care: Overtreatment amid systemic neglect.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025
    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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Liselot P WagenaarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Hubertus A van VlietDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Celine M RadderDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Louisette W PetersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Steven WeyersDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Benedictus C SchootDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Tjalina W HamerlynckDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University Hospital · BEOLVG · NLCatharina Ziekenhuis · NLGhent University · BERadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To compare intrauterine adhesion (IUA) formation after hysteroscopic removal (HR) of retained products of conception (RPOC) with IUA formation after ultrasound-guided electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) and externally validate the outcomes of an RCT. Study design: This prospective cohort study was conducted from April 2015 until June 2022 in 2 Dutch teaching hospitals and one Belgian university hospital. Women opting for EVA underwent the procedure as soon as possible. In the HR group, the therapeutic hysteroscopy was performed at least eight weeks after the end of pregnancy. Postoperatively, an office second-look hysteroscopy was offered to all patients. Women were included if they had been diagnosed with RPOC ranging from 1 to 4 cm on ultrasound and did not want to participate in the RCT. EVA was performed using a Karman cannula. Operative hysteroscopy consisted either of hysteroscopic morcellation with the TruClear™ System or the Intrauterine BIGATTI Shaver or cold loop resection with a bipolar resectoscope. Results: Of 178 included women, 124 were treated with HR and 28 with EVA. Outcomes of HR and EVA did not differ significantly in terms of complications (5.6 % vs 3.6 %; p = 1.00). Second-look hysteroscopy showed IUAs in 14 of 91 women (15.4 %) after HR and in 1 of 16 (6.3 %) after EVA (p = .461). Completeness of removal was significantly higher (90.1 %) after HR than after EVA (68.8 %) (p = .035). Additional operative hysteroscopy was required in 14.3 % of the HR group versus 37.5 % in the EVA group (p = .036). Conclusion: In our cohort study, no significant differences in IUAs or complications were found. RPOC removal with HR was more often complete than removal with EVA, and additional therapeutic hysteroscopy was less frequently required after HR. These findings need to be correlated with those of RCTs. Clinical trial registration: The study was registered in de Dutch Trial Register (NTR4923). Date of registration 23-11-2014. Date of first enrollment 01-01-2015. https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NTR4923.

Indexed as

Dilation and CurettageHysteroscopyIntrauterine adhesionsPlacental remnantsRetained products of conception

Identifiers

PMID37701632
PMCPMC10493502
OpenAlexW4386518259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.