ReviewEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2025
A comparison between laparoscopy and hysteroscopy approaches in the treatment of symptomatic isthmocele: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopy and hysteroscopy in the treatment of symptomatic isthmocele using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed until November 11, 2024. Studies evaluating outcomes of laparoscopy or hysteroscopy intervention for treating symptomatic isthmocele were included in this study. A random-effects model was employed for heterogeneous data. The study is registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD420251028603. Results: Nine studies involving 797 patients were included. Hysteroscopy demonstrated significantly less intraoperative blood loss (SMD: -2.28, 95 % CI: -3.65 to -0.90) and shorter hospital stays (SMD: -2.62, 95 % CI: -3.52 to -1.72), but the operative time difference was non-significant. Both approaches were equally effective in symptom resolution and defect repair (OR: 0.80, 95 % CI: 0.21-2.97). However, laparoscopic repair was associated with better outcomes for dysmenorrhea improvement (OR: 3.46, 95 % CI: 1.42-8.45) and higher postoperative pregnancy rates (OR: 4.17, 95 % CI: 1.89-9.09). High heterogeneity was noted in some outcomes, reflecting variability in study designs and populations. Conclusions: Both laparoscopy and hysteroscopy are effective in treating symptomatic isthmocele, with each approach offering distinct advantages. Hysteroscopy is less invasive with faster recovery and better fertility.
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.