Chen Wang, Yangqin Peng, Qinmei Wang, Yu Dong, Huimin Liu, Yaoshan Yao, Yuan Li, Ge Lin, Fei Gong, J Preston Parry, Nigel Pereira, India Morgan, Steven R Lindheim, Hui Chen
{"title":"使用人工宫腔镜组织切除装置进行宫腔镜息肉切除术与常规切除术后IVF妊娠结局无差异。","authors":"Chen Wang, Yangqin Peng, Qinmei Wang, Yu Dong, Huimin Liu, Yaoshan Yao, Yuan Li, Ge Lin, Fei Gong, J Preston Parry, Nigel Pereira, India Morgan, Steven R Lindheim, Hui Chen","doi":"10.1186/s12893-025-02857-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) pregnancy outcomes following endometrial polypectomy using either a manual mechanical hysteroscopic tissue resection device (mHTR) or traditional mechanical resection with scissors or polyp graspers resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study examined 189 infertile patients who had undergone polypectomy prior to IVF-ET at Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-XIANGYA. Patients undergoing polypectomy using manual mHTR resection were compared to those having the procedure through traditional mechanical resection. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) following the first ET after hysteroscopic polypectomy. Secondary outcomes included miscarriage rates and the optimal time interval from polyp resection to ET.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-hundred eleven (58.7%) patients underwent polypectomy via manual mHTR while 78 (41.3%) patients underwent traditional mechanical resection for polypectomy. Following the first ET, the positive pregnancy rate (80.2% vs. 79.5%; p = 1.000), CPR (70.3% vs. 74.4%; p = 0.652), and MR (11.5% vs. 12.1%; p = 1.000) were similar between those undergoing mHTR and traditional mechanical resection. After stratifying by the number of menstrual cycles from procedure (after next menses; 2 to 3 menstrual cycles; and > 3 menstrual cycles later), there was no differences in CPR when comparing the time from polypectomy and resection type.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study suggests no differences in IVF pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic polypectomy regardless of surgical type using manual mHTR or traditional mechanical resection and the timing from resection.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963464/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No differences in IVF pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic polypectomy using a manual hysteroscopic tissue removal device versus conventional resection.\",\"authors\":\"Chen Wang, Yangqin Peng, Qinmei Wang, Yu Dong, Huimin Liu, Yaoshan Yao, Yuan Li, Ge Lin, Fei Gong, J Preston Parry, Nigel Pereira, India Morgan, Steven R Lindheim, Hui Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12893-025-02857-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) pregnancy outcomes following endometrial polypectomy using either a manual mechanical hysteroscopic tissue resection device (mHTR) or traditional mechanical resection with scissors or polyp graspers resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study examined 189 infertile patients who had undergone polypectomy prior to IVF-ET at Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-XIANGYA. Patients undergoing polypectomy using manual mHTR resection were compared to those having the procedure through traditional mechanical resection. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) following the first ET after hysteroscopic polypectomy. Secondary outcomes included miscarriage rates and the optimal time interval from polyp resection to ET.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-hundred eleven (58.7%) patients underwent polypectomy via manual mHTR while 78 (41.3%) patients underwent traditional mechanical resection for polypectomy. Following the first ET, the positive pregnancy rate (80.2% vs. 79.5%; p = 1.000), CPR (70.3% vs. 74.4%; p = 0.652), and MR (11.5% vs. 12.1%; p = 1.000) were similar between those undergoing mHTR and traditional mechanical resection. After stratifying by the number of menstrual cycles from procedure (after next menses; 2 to 3 menstrual cycles; and > 3 menstrual cycles later), there was no differences in CPR when comparing the time from polypectomy and resection type.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study suggests no differences in IVF pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic polypectomy regardless of surgical type using manual mHTR or traditional mechanical resection and the timing from resection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"128\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963464/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-02857-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-02857-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:比较人工机械宫腔镜组织切除装置(mHTR)或传统机械剪刀或息肉钳切除子宫内膜息肉切除术后体外受精和胚胎移植(IVF-ET)妊娠结局。方法:回顾性分析湘雅生殖遗传医院在体外受精-体外受精前行息肉切除术的189例不孕症患者。将采用手工mHTR切除的息肉切除术患者与采用传统机械切除的息肉切除术患者进行比较。主要结局是宫腔镜息肉切除术后第一次ET后的临床妊娠率(CPR)。次要结局包括流产率和息肉切除到et的最佳时间间隔。结果:111例(58.7%)患者通过手动mHTR切除息肉,78例(41.3%)患者采用传统机械切除息肉。第一次ET后,阳性妊娠率(80.2% vs. 79.5%;p = 1.000), CPR (70.3% vs. 74.4%;p = 0.652), MR (11.5% vs. 12.1%;p = 1.000), mHTR与传统机械切除的差异相似。从手术开始按月经周期次数分层后(下次月经后;月经周期2 ~ 3次;(3个月经周期后),当比较息肉切除术和切除类型的时间时,CPR无差异。结论:本研究提示宫腔镜息肉切除术后IVF妊娠结局无差异,无论手术方式是手工mHTR还是传统机械切除以及切除时间。
No differences in IVF pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic polypectomy using a manual hysteroscopic tissue removal device versus conventional resection.
Background: To compare in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) pregnancy outcomes following endometrial polypectomy using either a manual mechanical hysteroscopic tissue resection device (mHTR) or traditional mechanical resection with scissors or polyp graspers resection.
Methods: This retrospective study examined 189 infertile patients who had undergone polypectomy prior to IVF-ET at Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-XIANGYA. Patients undergoing polypectomy using manual mHTR resection were compared to those having the procedure through traditional mechanical resection. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) following the first ET after hysteroscopic polypectomy. Secondary outcomes included miscarriage rates and the optimal time interval from polyp resection to ET.
Results: One-hundred eleven (58.7%) patients underwent polypectomy via manual mHTR while 78 (41.3%) patients underwent traditional mechanical resection for polypectomy. Following the first ET, the positive pregnancy rate (80.2% vs. 79.5%; p = 1.000), CPR (70.3% vs. 74.4%; p = 0.652), and MR (11.5% vs. 12.1%; p = 1.000) were similar between those undergoing mHTR and traditional mechanical resection. After stratifying by the number of menstrual cycles from procedure (after next menses; 2 to 3 menstrual cycles; and > 3 menstrual cycles later), there was no differences in CPR when comparing the time from polypectomy and resection type.
Conclusion: This study suggests no differences in IVF pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic polypectomy regardless of surgical type using manual mHTR or traditional mechanical resection and the timing from resection.