Resectoscope versus small diameter hysteroscopy for endometrial polypectomy in patients with "unfavorable" cervix

Gloria Calagna, Antonino Perino, Maria T. Schettino, Nicola Colacurci, Flavio Grauso, Pasquale Defranciscis, Pasquale Defranciscis, Enrico M. Messalli, Marco Torella

Risultato della ricerca: Articlepeer review

1 Citazioni (Scopus)


Backgeound: The aim of this study was to compare resectoscopic and small-diameter hysteroscopic techniques for endometrial polypectomy in patients with "unfavorable" cervix. Methods: Eighty women with a single 2-4 cm sized endometrial polyp, with unfavorable cervical anatomical conditions were enrolled in the study. Forty patients were treated with a 26F resectoscope requiring cervical dilatation (group A), forty patients were treated with a 5-mm hysteroscope requiring vaginoscopic approach (group B). Operative time, fluid absorption, complications, instrument failure, postoperative pain, overnight stay were analyzed. Operative visualization, operative difficulty and overall surgeon's satisfaction were assessed with a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Results: Operative time was significantly longer in group A than in group B (18.3±7.4 vs. 11.3±5.2 minutes), the cumulative complication rate and the need of postoperative analgesics were higher in group Athan in group B. VAS of surgical difficulty and surgeon's satisfaction were higher in group B than in group A. Conclusions: The small-diameter hysteroscopy is a safe and effective approach for endometrial polyp up to 4 cm in patients with unfavorable cervical canal at risk of cervical injury.
Lingua originaleEnglish
pagine (da-a)239-244
Numero di pagine6
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2017

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • ???subjectarea.asjc.2700.2729???


Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'Resectoscope versus small diameter hysteroscopy for endometrial polypectomy in patients with "unfavorable" cervix'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

Cita questo