ArticleMaedica2025
Analysis of Efficacy and Safety Profile of Vaginal Surgery and Hysteroscopic Electric Resection in the Management of Post-Cesarean Section Isthmocele: a Systematic Review.
Article in Maedica, 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.
- Comparison of four imaging modalities for cesarean scar defect: a retrospective study.BMC 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The present study has discussed the increasing prevalence of isthmocele, which is related to growing cesarean sections. It is also due to enhanced diagnostics, which includes transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that significantly affects women's reproductive health and quality of life. Management differs by defect size, from hysteroscopic to laparoscopic repair, which also highlights the necessity for standardized protocols. Aim: s and objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of vaginal surgery and hysteroscopic electric resection in the management of post-cesarean section isthmocele. Methods: This systematic review analyzed the efficacy and safety of vaginal surgery and hysteroscopic electrotomy for managing post-cesarean section isthmocele. Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science using terms like "cesarean scar", "isthmocele" and "hysteroscopic electrotomy". We conducted the present review using a PRISMA flowchart, which resulted in the inclusion of eight studies after screening and eligibility assessment. Results: The hysteroscopic method consistently shows a lower risk compared to the vaginal method, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.71 (95% CI 0.59-0.85), indicating statistical significance. Heterogeneity analysis reveals no significant variability among studies (I² = 0%), suggesting consistent results. Additionally, the hysteroscopic group outperforms the vaginal group in efficacy for diverticulum recovery, supporting hysteroscopy as the more effective approach across both outcomes. Conclusion: The present study has concluded that the hysteroscopic electric resection was safer and more efficient in the management of isthmocele among patients who underwent a cesarean section.
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.