ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
Outcomes from blind versus ultrasound-guided uterine evacuation: A retrospective cohort analysis.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. 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.
- Further consideration of long-term outcomes, utilization decisions, and surgical technique could inform clinical guidelines for ultrasound guided uterine evacuation.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Beyond complication rates: Surgical instrumentation, clinical decision-making, and long-term outcomes in uterine evacuation.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWomen may need a surgical uterine evacuation for miscarriage, surgical termination, or retained products of conception. Previous research has indicated possible complications of uterine dilatation and curettage and potential benefits of an ultrasound-guided procedure. This study aimed to compare the rate of complications for uterine evacuation when performed blind or with ultrasound guidance, including whether the presence of patient risk factors determined the use of ultrasound guidance. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 733 cases in an Australian hospital between January 2019 and December 2023. Medical records, imaging, and surgical reports were searched for patient demographics, risk factors, and the presence of surgical complications. Primary outcomes were complications of uterine perforation, false passage, incomplete curettage, heavy blood loss, or laparoscopy. Secondary outcomes were patient demographics and potential presurgical complication factors. The study created two cohorts: patients receiving evacuation performed blind or with ultrasound guidance.
resultsThe uterine evacuation was performed blind for 421/733 (57%) women and ultrasound-guided for 312/733 (43%) women. The ultrasound-guided group included higher gestational ages 8 [7-11] weeks vs blind 8 [7-9] weeks, more patients with risk factors (OR 1.7, CI: 1.3 to 2.3), more patients for surgical termination (OR 15.3, CI: 5.4 to 43.3), or postpartum RPOC removal (OR 2.3, CI: 1.3 to 3.9). The ultrasound group had lower overall blood loss (20 mLs vs 30 mL) and clinically significantly lower volumes of continuing retained products of conception, 0.66 cm
conclusionsThere were low complication rates for blind and ultrasound-guided uterine evacuations. However, ultrasound guidance was utilized for higher-risk cases and significantly reduced the volume of retained tissue in complicated cases. The use of ultrasound guidance by doctors and sonographers for uterine evacuation is a compelling choice where available.
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.