ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Comparison of hysteroscopic adhesiolysis with electrosurgery instrument or hysteroscopic scissors in the treatment of intrauterine adhesions of infertile or recurrent pregnancy loss women.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hysteroscopic Cold Knife Separation Combined with Autologous Platelet Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Intrauterine Adhesions: A Comparative Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic adhesiolysis (HA) in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) or infertility.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingUniversity-affiliated hospital. SUBJECTS: According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this study, finally, a total of 461 subjects were included.
interventionsHA performed using either an electrosurgical instrument or hysteroscopic scissors.
main outcome measuresPregnancy outcomes post-HA.
resultsA total of 461 patients were included in the study, with follow-up periods ranging from 1 to 6 years. The mean age was 29.48 ± 3.25 years. Hysteroscopic scissors demonstrated greater efficiency in restoring the uterine cavity compared to electrosurgical instruments (88.1% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.025). Post-HA, the pregnancy rate was approximately 75.3% (347/461), with a live birth rate of 55.9% (251/449). No significant differences were found between the electrosurgical instrument and hysteroscopic scissors groups regarding improvements in menstrual flow or fertility outcomes (all p > 0.05). Kaplan-Meier time-dependent cumulative curves for pregnancy and live birth rates after HA indicated that over 50% of patients achieved pregnancy within one year, with the pregnancy rate plateauing at 2 years and the live birth rate at 3 years.
conclusionOur findings suggest that HA can improve fertility outcomes for patients with RPL or infertility within 2 to 3 years following surgery. Hysteroscopic scissors proved more effective than electrosurgical instruments in restoring the uterine cavity, although no differences were observed between the techniques in terms of menstrual flow or fertility improvements. All in all, our study suggests that standardized HA procedures, the implementation of proactive intraoperative and postoperative measures to prevent the recurrence of intrauterine adhesions (IUA), and an active conception plan following HA are key factors in improving reproductive outcomes for these patients with RPL or infertility.
Indexed as
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.