Effectiveness of Hysteroscopic Techniques for Endometrial Polyp Removal: The Italian Multicenter Trial
Massimo Luerti,Amerigo Vitagliano,Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo,Stefano Angioni,Giancarlo Garuti,Carlo De Angelis,Italian School of Minimally Invasive Gynecological Surgery Hysteroscopists Group,Serena Del Zoppo,Davide Dealberti,Luigi Nappi,Gaetano Perrini,Stefano Bettocchi,Paolo Casadio,Gian Luigi Marchino,Enrico Busato,Stefano Calzolari,Eleonora Castellacci,Francesco Leone,Gianluca Benassi,Francesco Mangino,Federica Scrimin,Giovanna Giarrè,Vito Cela,Pasquale Florio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.12.002
Abstract:Study objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of different techniques of hysteroscopic polypectomy. Design: Multicenter, prospective observational trial (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Nineteen Italian gynecologic departments (university-affiliated or public hospitals). Patients: Consecutive patients suffering from endometrial polyps (EPs). Interventions: Hysteroscopic polypectomy, as performed through different techniques. Measurements and main results: Included in the study were 1404 patients (with 1825 EPs). The setting was an ambulatory care unit in 40.38% of the cases (567 women), of whom 97.7% (554) did not require analgesia/anesthesia. In the remaining 59.62% of women (837 women), the procedures were performed in an operating room under mild sedation, local or general anesthesia. Minor complications occurred in 32 patients (2.27%), without significant differences between the techniques used (p = ns). Uterine perforation occurred in 14 cases, all performed in the operating room with some kind of anesthesia, only 1 with a vaginoscopic technique and the remaining during blind dilatation (odds ratio [OR], 19.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-335.79; p = .04). An incomplete removal of EPs was documented in 39 patients. Logistic regression analysis showed that a higher risk of residual EPs was associated with the use of a fiber-based 3.5-mm hysteroscope (OR, 6.78; 95% CI, 2.97-15.52; p <.001), the outpatient setting (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.14-4.14; p = .019), and EPs located at the tubal corner (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-2.79; p = .039). No association between incomplete EP removal and EP size or number was recorded (p = ns), as well as with the other variables evaluated. Conclusion: Outpatient polypectomy was associated with a minimal but significantly higher risk of residual EPs in comparison with inpatient polypectomy. Conversely, inpatient polypectomy was associated with a considerably higher risk of uterine perforation and penetration in comparison with office hysteroscopy. Because of lower intraoperative risks and higher cost-effectiveness, office hysteroscopy may be considered, whenever possible, as the gold standard technique for removing EPs.