ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2025
Outcomes and complications of pre-assisted reproductive technology hysteroscopic evaluation and treatment: a cross-sectional study at a Nigerian teaching hospital.
Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHysteroscopy plays a vital role in diagnosing and managing intrauterine pathologies that could impair reproductive success. It is especially valuable for women seeking assisted reproductive technology (ART), as structural uterine abnormalities-such as adhesions, polyps, and fibroids-can reduce implantation success or increase the risk of miscarriage. This pre-ART evaluation method is crucial in low-resource settings like Nigeria, where optimizing every ART cycle is essential due to high costs and limited access. This study assesses the hysteroscopic findings, procedural outcomes, and reproductive results among women undergoing pre-ART hysteroscopy at a tertiary hospital in Lagos, Nigeria.
methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study reviewed the medical records of 121 women who underwent diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy between August 2019 and October 2023 at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH). Among these women, 91 (75.2%) received hysteroscopy as part of pre-ART assessment. Data collected included demographics, hysteroscopic diagnoses, procedural types, complications, and post-hysteroscopy ART outcomes. Analyses were conducted using SPSS version 27.0, with results presented in terms of frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations.
resultsThe mean age of participants was 37.7 years, with most (78%) aged 35 years or older. A significant majority had no previous live births (91.6%) or prior ART experience (86.8%). Hysteroscopic findings included intrauterine adhesions (45%), endometrial polyps (22%), and normal endometrial cavities (22%). Operative hysteroscopy was conducted in 78% of cases, with intrauterine adhesiolysis (50.5%) and polypectomy (22%) as the most frequent procedures. Complications were rare, with only 8.8% of therapeutic procedures resulting in issues, primarily uterine perforation. Of the 73 women who continued with ART post-hysteroscopy, 28.1% achieved pregnancy following IVF and embryo transfer.
conclusionPre-ART hysteroscopy is beneficial in identifying and managing intrauterine pathologies that could hinder ART success. In this study, intrauterine adhesions were the most common finding, and therapeutic interventions were effectively performed with minimal complications. These findings support the use of hysteroscopy as an integral component of ART preparation, particularly in resource-constrained settings, to improve reproductive outcomes and optimize ART cycles.
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.