ArticleBMC surgery2025
No differences in IVF pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic polypectomy using a manual hysteroscopic tissue removal device versus conventional resection.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cumulative Reproductive Outcomes Across Three Embryo Transfer Cycles After Hysteroscopic Endometrial Polypectomy Using a Tissue Removal System in Infertile Women: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Endometrial Polyps and Subfertility in Women Under 40: Pathophysiology, Fertility Outcomes, and Clinical Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) pregnancy outcomes following endometrial polypectomy using either a manual mechanical hysteroscopic tissue resection device (mHTR) or traditional mechanical resection with scissors or polyp graspers resection.
methodsThis retrospective study examined 189 infertile patients who had undergone polypectomy prior to IVF-ET at Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-XIANGYA. Patients undergoing polypectomy using manual mHTR resection were compared to those having the procedure through traditional mechanical resection. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) following the first ET after hysteroscopic polypectomy. Secondary outcomes included miscarriage rates and the optimal time interval from polyp resection to ET.
resultsOne-hundred eleven (58.7%) patients underwent polypectomy via manual mHTR while 78 (41.3%) patients underwent traditional mechanical resection for polypectomy. Following the first ET, the positive pregnancy rate (80.2% vs. 79.5%; p = 1.000), CPR (70.3% vs. 74.4%; p = 0.652), and MR (11.5% vs. 12.1%; p = 1.000) were similar between those undergoing mHTR and traditional mechanical resection. After stratifying by the number of menstrual cycles from procedure (after next menses; 2 to 3 menstrual cycles; and > 3 menstrual cycles later), there was no differences in CPR when comparing the time from polypectomy and resection type.
conclusionThis study suggests no differences in IVF pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic polypectomy regardless of surgical type using manual mHTR or traditional mechanical resection and the timing from resection.
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.