Does ultrasound guidance during dilation and curettage for first trimester missed abortion reduce complication rates?

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-11-07 DOI:10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05192-2
Adiel Cohen, Gilad Karavani, Amit Zamir, Ayalon Hadar, Henry H Chill, Avraham Zini
{"title":"Does ultrasound guidance during dilation and curettage for first trimester missed abortion reduce complication rates?","authors":"Adiel Cohen, Gilad Karavani, Amit Zamir, Ayalon Hadar, Henry H Chill, Avraham Zini","doi":"10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05192-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dilation and curettage (D&C) may be performed with or without transabdominal ultrasound guidance. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the use of ultrasound guidance during D&C for first trimester missed abortion (MA) and D&C related complication rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study included women in the age of 20-45 years, who underwent D&C for first-trimester MA in a hospital-based setting between 2013-2019. The study population was divided into two groups: the study group which included women who underwent D&C with ultrasound guidance (US group) and the control group, which included women who underwent D&C without ultrasound guidance (N-US group). Gynecologic, obstetric, and operative related data were collected from electronic medical records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three-hundred and seventy-eight women were included in the study, 86 women in the US group and 292 women in N-US group. Baseline maternal characteristics and procedure-related characteristics did not differ between the groups. No significant difference between the US group and N-US group was shown when comparing D&C related complications, including retained products of conception rate (2.3% vs. 5.5%, respectively; P=0.385), uterine perforation rate (1.2% vs. 0.3%, respectively; P=0.404), and the total complication rate (8.1% vs. 12.3%, respectively; P=0.338). In a multivariate analysis, the use of ultrasound guidance during D&C was not found to be associated with lower complication rate (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.468 [0.578-3.729], P=0.419).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Performance of D&C under ultrasound guidance for first-trimester MA, in a hospital-based setting, was not associated with lower complication rate, suggesting that the common practice of performing D&C without the use of ultrasound is an acceptable approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":18572,"journal":{"name":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05192-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Dilation and curettage (D&C) may be performed with or without transabdominal ultrasound guidance. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the use of ultrasound guidance during D&C for first trimester missed abortion (MA) and D&C related complication rates.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study included women in the age of 20-45 years, who underwent D&C for first-trimester MA in a hospital-based setting between 2013-2019. The study population was divided into two groups: the study group which included women who underwent D&C with ultrasound guidance (US group) and the control group, which included women who underwent D&C without ultrasound guidance (N-US group). Gynecologic, obstetric, and operative related data were collected from electronic medical records.

Results: Three-hundred and seventy-eight women were included in the study, 86 women in the US group and 292 women in N-US group. Baseline maternal characteristics and procedure-related characteristics did not differ between the groups. No significant difference between the US group and N-US group was shown when comparing D&C related complications, including retained products of conception rate (2.3% vs. 5.5%, respectively; P=0.385), uterine perforation rate (1.2% vs. 0.3%, respectively; P=0.404), and the total complication rate (8.1% vs. 12.3%, respectively; P=0.338). In a multivariate analysis, the use of ultrasound guidance during D&C was not found to be associated with lower complication rate (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.468 [0.578-3.729], P=0.419).

Conclusions: Performance of D&C under ultrasound guidance for first-trimester MA, in a hospital-based setting, was not associated with lower complication rate, suggesting that the common practice of performing D&C without the use of ultrasound is an acceptable approach.

在对头胎流产失误进行扩张和刮宫术时使用超声引导是否能降低并发症发生率?
背景:经腹超声引导或不经腹腔超声引导均可进行扩张和刮宫术(D&C)。我们的目的是评估在第一胎漏吸流产(MA)的 D&C 过程中使用超声引导与 D&C 相关并发症发生率之间的关联:这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象包括2013-2019年间在医院接受第一胎人工流产D&C的20-45岁女性。研究对象分为两组--研究组包括在超声引导下进行剖腹产的女性(US 组),对照组包括在无超声引导下进行剖腹产的女性(N-US 组)。妇科、产科和手术相关数据均来自电子病历:研究共纳入 378 名妇女,其中美国组 86 名,无美国组 292 名。两组产妇的基线特征和手术相关特征没有差异。在比较与剖腹产相关的并发症--受孕产物残留率(分别为 2.3% 对 5.5%;P=0.385)、子宫穿孔率(分别为 1.2% 对 0.3%;P=0.404)和总并发症率(分别为 8.1% 对 12.3%;P=0.338)时,美国组和 N-US 组之间无明显差异。在多变量分析中,发现在 D&C 过程中使用超声引导与较低的并发症发生率无关(调整后比值比 (aOR) 95% 置信区间 (CI) 1.468 (0.578-3.729),P=0.419):结论:在医院环境中,在超声引导下对第一胎 MA 进行剖腹产与降低并发症发生率无关,这表明不使用超声进行剖腹产的常见做法是可以接受的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
191
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信