冷剪犁技术与电切术治疗宫腔镜粘连松解:一项多中心随机对照试验。

IF 12.5 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Yichun Liu, Xiaoshi Xie, Pingping Xue, Fang Yuan, Yinghua Qi, Hui Wang, Ping Wang, Guanjun Lv, Kejuan Song, Zongzhi Yang, Ya-Nan Zhang, Lei Yan
{"title":"冷剪犁技术与电切术治疗宫腔镜粘连松解:一项多中心随机对照试验。","authors":"Yichun Liu, Xiaoshi Xie, Pingping Xue, Fang Yuan, Yinghua Qi, Hui Wang, Ping Wang, Guanjun Lv, Kejuan Song, Zongzhi Yang, Ya-Nan Zhang, Lei Yan","doi":"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) may lead to abnormal menstruation, infertility, and pregnancy-related complications. Hysteroscopic separation is the gold standard treatment for IUA and can be performed using a variety of instruments and methods, including cold scissors and electrotomy. However, it is unclear which method is more effective for relieving IUA, restoring uterine anatomy, and improving the pregnancy rate in women of childbearing age. This multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial included 218 women aged 20-40 years who were treated for IUA between 1 March 2021 and 30 June 2022 and followed for 1.5 years. The women were randomly assigned to a cold scissors group ( n  = 109) or electrosurgical excision group ( n  = 109). Second-look hysteroscopy was performed in all patients within 3-10 days after the end of the first postoperative menstrual period. The primary outcome was the change in American Fertility Society score. Secondary outcomes included postoperative menstrual blood loss, the recurrence rate, and the reproductive outcome. There was no significant difference in the curative effect of hysteroscopic adhesiolysis between the cold scissors group and the electrosurgical excision group (5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs. 5 [interquartile range, 4-6], P  = 0.729) or in the postoperative recurrence rate (27.5% vs. 30.6%, relative risk 0.901, 95% confidence interval 0.594-1.366, P  = 0.623) or pregnancy outcomes between the two groups. Postoperative menstrual blood loss was significantly greater in the cold scissors group than in the electrosurgical excision group (65.1% vs. 48.1%, P  = 0.029). The treatment cost was significantly lower in the cold scissors group ( P  < 0.001). In conclusion, hysteroscopic adhesiolysis using cold scissors does not differ significantly from electrosurgery in terms of treatment efficacy, recurrence rate, pregnancy rate, or pregnancy-related complications in patients with IUA who have normal ovarian reserve and an endometrial thickness of ≥6 mm before ovulation. The cold scissors ploughing technique can increase menstrual blood loss and is a cost-effective procedure.</p>","PeriodicalId":14401,"journal":{"name":"International journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"2002-2009"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cold scissors ploughing technique versus electrosurgical excision for hysteroscopic adhesiolysis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yichun Liu, Xiaoshi Xie, Pingping Xue, Fang Yuan, Yinghua Qi, Hui Wang, Ping Wang, Guanjun Lv, Kejuan Song, Zongzhi Yang, Ya-Nan Zhang, Lei Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002182\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) may lead to abnormal menstruation, infertility, and pregnancy-related complications. Hysteroscopic separation is the gold standard treatment for IUA and can be performed using a variety of instruments and methods, including cold scissors and electrotomy. However, it is unclear which method is more effective for relieving IUA, restoring uterine anatomy, and improving the pregnancy rate in women of childbearing age. This multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial included 218 women aged 20-40 years who were treated for IUA between 1 March 2021 and 30 June 2022 and followed for 1.5 years. The women were randomly assigned to a cold scissors group ( n  = 109) or electrosurgical excision group ( n  = 109). Second-look hysteroscopy was performed in all patients within 3-10 days after the end of the first postoperative menstrual period. The primary outcome was the change in American Fertility Society score. Secondary outcomes included postoperative menstrual blood loss, the recurrence rate, and the reproductive outcome. There was no significant difference in the curative effect of hysteroscopic adhesiolysis between the cold scissors group and the electrosurgical excision group (5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs. 5 [interquartile range, 4-6], P  = 0.729) or in the postoperative recurrence rate (27.5% vs. 30.6%, relative risk 0.901, 95% confidence interval 0.594-1.366, P  = 0.623) or pregnancy outcomes between the two groups. Postoperative menstrual blood loss was significantly greater in the cold scissors group than in the electrosurgical excision group (65.1% vs. 48.1%, P  = 0.029). The treatment cost was significantly lower in the cold scissors group ( P  < 0.001). In conclusion, hysteroscopic adhesiolysis using cold scissors does not differ significantly from electrosurgery in terms of treatment efficacy, recurrence rate, pregnancy rate, or pregnancy-related complications in patients with IUA who have normal ovarian reserve and an endometrial thickness of ≥6 mm before ovulation. The cold scissors ploughing technique can increase menstrual blood loss and is a cost-effective procedure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2002-2009\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002182\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002182","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

宫腔粘连(IUA)可能导致月经异常、不孕和妊娠相关并发症。宫腔镜分离术是IUA的金标准治疗方法,可以使用多种仪器和方法进行,包括冷剪刀和电切术。然而,对于缓解IUA、恢复子宫解剖、提高育龄妇女妊娠率,哪种方法更有效尚不清楚。这项多中心前瞻性随机临床试验纳入了218名年龄在20-40岁之间的女性,她们在2021年3月1日至2022年6月30日期间接受了IUA治疗,随访时间为1.5年。这些妇女被随机分为冷剪组(n = 109)和电切组(n = 109)。所有患者均于术后第一次月经结束后3-10天内行复视宫腔镜检查。主要结果是美国生育学会评分的变化。次要结局包括术后月经出血量、复发率和生殖结局。冷剪组与电切组宫腔镜下粘连松解术的疗效比较(5[四分位数范围,4-6]vs 5[四分位数范围,4-6],P = 0.729),术后复发率比较(27.5% vs 30.6%,相对危险度0.901,95%可信区间0.594 ~ 1.366,P = 0.623),两组妊娠结局比较差异无统计学意义。冷剪组术后月经出血量明显大于电切组(65.1%比48.1%,P = 0.029)。冷剪组治疗费用显著低于对照组(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cold scissors ploughing technique versus electrosurgical excision for hysteroscopic adhesiolysis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) may lead to abnormal menstruation, infertility, and pregnancy-related complications. Hysteroscopic separation is the gold standard treatment for IUA and can be performed using a variety of instruments and methods, including cold scissors and electrotomy. However, it is unclear which method is more effective for relieving IUA, restoring uterine anatomy, and improving the pregnancy rate in women of childbearing age. This multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial included 218 women aged 20-40 years who were treated for IUA between 1 March 2021 and 30 June 2022 and followed for 1.5 years. The women were randomly assigned to a cold scissors group ( n  = 109) or electrosurgical excision group ( n  = 109). Second-look hysteroscopy was performed in all patients within 3-10 days after the end of the first postoperative menstrual period. The primary outcome was the change in American Fertility Society score. Secondary outcomes included postoperative menstrual blood loss, the recurrence rate, and the reproductive outcome. There was no significant difference in the curative effect of hysteroscopic adhesiolysis between the cold scissors group and the electrosurgical excision group (5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs. 5 [interquartile range, 4-6], P  = 0.729) or in the postoperative recurrence rate (27.5% vs. 30.6%, relative risk 0.901, 95% confidence interval 0.594-1.366, P  = 0.623) or pregnancy outcomes between the two groups. Postoperative menstrual blood loss was significantly greater in the cold scissors group than in the electrosurgical excision group (65.1% vs. 48.1%, P  = 0.029). The treatment cost was significantly lower in the cold scissors group ( P  < 0.001). In conclusion, hysteroscopic adhesiolysis using cold scissors does not differ significantly from electrosurgery in terms of treatment efficacy, recurrence rate, pregnancy rate, or pregnancy-related complications in patients with IUA who have normal ovarian reserve and an endometrial thickness of ≥6 mm before ovulation. The cold scissors ploughing technique can increase menstrual blood loss and is a cost-effective procedure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Surgery (IJS) has a broad scope, encompassing all surgical specialties. Its primary objective is to facilitate the exchange of crucial ideas and lines of thought between and across these specialties.By doing so, the journal aims to counter the growing trend of increasing sub-specialization, which can result in "tunnel-vision" and the isolation of significant surgical advancements within specific specialties.
×
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