Search

Objective: To study the effectiveness of a new intrauterine degradable polymer film (Womed Leaf) in the management of moderate to severe intrauterine adhesions (IUA)., Design: PREG-2 study was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled, stratified, two-arm superiority clinical trial conducted in 16 centers in seven countries., Setting: Not applicable., Patient(s): Patients ≥18 years scheduled for hysteroscopic adhesiolysis because of symptomatic severe or moderate adhesions (according to American Fertility Society [AFS] IUA score) were considered eligible for the study., Intervention(s): After adhesiolysis, patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to either have a Womed Leaf film inserted (intervention group) or not (control group)., Main Outcome Measure(s): The primary effectiveness endpoint of the study was the change in AFS IUA score on second-look hysteroscopy (SLH), assessed by an independent evaluator, and compared with baseline. Information on the rate of no IUA and responder rate was collected as secondary effectiveness outcomes, while reported adverse events and patient-reported outcomes as safety and tolerability measures., Result(s): Between October 26, 2021, and September 28, 2023, a total of 160 women were randomized (Womed Leaf: n = 75 and controls: n = 85). The reduction in IUA AFS score on SLH was significantly higher in the intervention compared with the control group (mean 5.2 ± 2.8 vs. 4.2 ± 3.2). Similarly, the absence of adhesions on SLH was significantly higher in the intervention group (41% vs. 24%; odds ratio, 2.44; confidence interval, 1.161-5.116). None of the reported adverse events were serious or considered related to the device., Conclusion(s): Womed Leaf is effective and safe in the management of symptomatic severe or moderate IUAs., Clinical Trial Registration Number: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04963179., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests H.F. has a voluntary role as a medical advisor for Womed SAS. L.M. has nothing to disclose. J.S. has nothing to disclose. S.W. has nothing to disclose. M. Munmany has nothing to disclose. X.L. has nothing to disclose. P.K. has nothing to disclose. Y.W. has nothing to disclose. B.Z. has nothing to disclose. A.S. has nothing to disclose. V.D. has nothing to disclose. E.M. has nothing to disclose. M.S. has nothing to disclose. G.P. has nothing to disclose. L.S. has nothing to disclose. M. Mara reports support for attending SEUD 2024 conference, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this follow-up study is to compare a manually driven hysteroscopic tissue removal system (Resectr TM 9 Fr) with a motor driven system (Truclear TM ) in terms of long-term clinical outcomes such as abnormal uterine bleeding and polyp recurrence., Study Design: This is a follow-up of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing a manually and motor driven hysteroscopic tissue removal system for polypectomy. This prospective cohort study was performed at Ghent University Hospital (Ghent, Belgium) and Catharina Hospital Eindhoven (Eindhoven, the Netherlands). The trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Trial ID = NCT05337605, April 2022). Seventy-five women with abnormal uterine bleeding who participated in the randomized controlled trial and had pathological confirmation of the diagnosis of an endometrial polyp, were contacted. Fifty-five women (70.67 %) were willing to participate in this follow-up study. The primary outcome was the recurrence and/or persistence of abnormal uterine bleeding and the time to the recurrence of abnormal uterine bleeding. Secondary outcomes were polyp recurrence and time to polyp recurrence, symptom relief, satisfaction score regarding symptom relief and general satisfaction score regarding the surgical procedure., Results: In the manually driven group, the mean time to the recurrence or persistence of abnormal uterine bleeding was 26 months (95 % CI 20 - 32). In the motor driven group, the mean time to the recurrence or persistence of abnormal uterine bleeding was 29 months (95 % CI 23- 34). A log-rank test showed a non-significant difference between both groups (P =.77). There was no significant difference in polyp recurrence (P =.22) or symptom relief between the two groups (P =.67). Additionally, the groups did not differ in satisfaction scores regarding symptoms or polypectomy (P =.16 and P =.61, respectively)., Conclusion: This long-term follow-up study showed no statistically significant difference in the recurrence and persistence of abnormal uterine bleeding between a manually and motor driven hysteroscopic tissue removal system for polypectomy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: H.v.V received an unrestricted grant from the External Research Program from Medtronic. T.H. reports unrestricted external research support from Medtronic for the ongoing RIGHT trial at Ghent University Hospital. The other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To study the comparison between hysteroscopic morcellation (HM) of retained products of conception (RPOC) with ultrasound (US)-guided electric vacuum aspiration in terms of intrauterine adhesion (IUA) formation, efficacy, and complications., Design: A randomized controlled, nonblinded trial., Setting: Three teaching hospitals and one university hospital from April 2015 to June 2022., Patients: A total of 133 women with RPOC on US, ranging from 1-4 cm, were randomized to receive either HM or electric vacuum aspiration., Intervention: Hysteroscopic morcellation was performed with the TruClear System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). Electric vacuum aspiration was performed using an 8- or 10-mm flexible plastic Karman cannula under US guidance. Women allocated to vacuum aspiration underwent the procedure as soon as possible., Main Outcome Measures: In the HM group, an office diagnostic hysteroscopy was planned a minimum of 6 weeks after the end of pregnancy, followed by retained product of conception removal at least 8 weeks after the end of the pregnancy. Postoperatively, an office second-look hysteroscopy was scheduled to assess the primary outcome of IUAs., Results: Postoperative IUAs were seen in 14.3% (9/63) of patients in the HM group and 20.6% (13/64) of patients in the vacuum aspiration group (-6% [-19.1% to 7.1%]). Significantly more RPOC were removed completely by HM compared with vacuum aspiration (95.2% vs. 82.5% (-14% [-24.9% to -3.1%]), and additional operative hysteroscopy was less frequently necessary in the HM group (12.5%) compared with the vacuum aspiration group (31.3%) (-20.1% [-34.3% to -6%]). The median operating time was shorter for vacuum aspiration compared with HM (5.80 minutes vs. 7.15 minutes). No differences were observed between HM and vacuum aspiration for the occurrence of intraoperative or postoperative complications (5.5% vs. 5.0% and 2.7% vs. 1.3%, respectively)., Conclusion: In our randomized controlled trial, no significant differences were found in the occurrence of IUAs and complications. However, the RPOC were more often completely removed by HM than vacuum aspiration, and the HM group required fewer additional hysteroscopic treatments., Clinical Trial Registration Number: NTR4923 (https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NTR4923). Date of registration: November 23, 2014, date of initial participant enrollment: January 1, 2015., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests L.P.W. has nothing to disclose. T.W.H. (the Ghent University Hospital) has received compensation from Medtronic for a lecture on RPOC. C.M.R. has nothing to disclose. L.W.P. has nothing to disclose. S.W. has nothing to disclose. B.C.S. has received compensation from Medtronic on an hourly basis for lectures on HM and donated all the compensation to a foundation that promotes research in obstetrics and gynecology. H.A.v.V. has received compensation from Medtronic on an hourly basis for lectures on HM and donated all the compensation to a foundation that promotes research in obstetrics and gynecology., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A first clinical evaluation of a new hand-driven hysteroscopic tissue removal device, Resectr ™ 5fr, for office polypectomy without any anesthesia., Methods: Women with at least one small endometrial polyp were eligible. Hysteroscopic polypectomy was performed using the Resectr ™ 5fr in an office setting, without any anesthesia., Results: One hundred and two hysteroscopic polypectomies were included in the analysis. The median installation time was 1.9 min (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-2.1). The median time to complete polyp removal was 1.2 min (95% CI 0.8-1.6). The median surgeon's safety, practical, and comfort scores on a 5-point Likert scale were high (5 (5-5), 5 (4-5), and 5 (4-5), respectively). Women's pain score was low (median 1 (0-3)), whereas the satisfaction rate was high (median 5 (5-5)), both on a 5-point Likert scale. There were two conversions (hysteroscopic scissors (n = 1), a new Resectr ™ 5fr device (n = 1)). There was one incomplete procedure (tissue hardness)., Conclusion: Hysteroscopic removal of small polyps, using the [Formula: see text] 5fr in an office setting is feasible in terms of installation and resection time. Surgeon's practical, comfort, and safety scores are high, whereas women report low pain scores and high satisfaction rates.  TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Clinical Trial Registry (NTR 7119, NL6923): https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6923 . Date of registration: 27/03/2018., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a heart-shaped intrauterine balloon as antiadhesion method immediately after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis in terms of surgeon's and patient's experience. This feasibility study was performed at the Ghent University Hospital (Belgium) from 2018 to 2020. A heart-shaped intrauterine balloon was inserted in 10 women immediately after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis and left in place for 7 days under antibiotic prophylaxis. Insertion and removal of the balloon was easy in 7 women out of 10 (5-point Likert scale), and successful in all cases. The median pain score during balloon wearing on a visual analogue scale (VAS) was 1.7 (IQR 1.0-4.2). Seven out of 10 women were satisfied (5-point Likert scale). Eight out of 10 women would probably or certainly recommend the procedure to a friend (5-point Likert scale) and would use the balloon again. The heart-shaped intrauterine balloon as antiadhesion method is feasible in terms of surgeon's and patient's experience. Designing a proper Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is worth the effort. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03446755). Initial release on 27th February 2018.IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? Intrauterine adhesion (IUA) reformation is high and different methods to prevent this subsequent to an operative hysteroscopy have been assessed. The use of antiadhesion gel, acting as a mechanical barrier, may decrease the occurrence of IUAs compared to no treatment or placebo. A heart-shaped intrauterine balloon is another example of a mechanical barrier. A small number of studies, of varying quality and with heterogeneous results, have been performed. A proper RCT, comparing the intrauterine balloon to no treatment or placebo, is needed. What the results of this study add? The heart-shaped intrauterine balloon as antiadhesion method is feasible in terms of surgeon's and patient's experience. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Designing a proper RCT is worth the effort.

Study Objective: To evaluate the safety and potential efficacy of a novel degradable polymer film (DPF) designed to act as a 7-day barrier to prevent intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) after hysteroscopic myomectomy., Design: A prospective single-arm, first-in-human clinical study., Setting: Multicenter study involving 6 centers in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands., Patients: Women aged 40 years or older with no plans to conceive who qualified for hysteroscopic myomectomy (at least 1 10-mm type 0, 1, or 2 myoma) and had a sounded length of the uterine cavity (fundus to exocervix) ranging between 6 cm and 9 cm were considered eligible for the study., Interventions: The DPF was inserted after hysteroscopic transcervical myoma resection. The women were followed up by a telephone call at 30 days and second-look hysteroscopy 4 to 8 weeks after the procedure., Measurements and Main Results: The chosen safety outcome measures were uterine perforation or cervical trauma at the time of the DPF insertion and unexpected fever, pain, or bleeding beyond 48 hours and up to 30 days after insertion, whereas the outcome measure for efficacy was the absence of IUAs on second-look hysteroscopy. A total of 23 women participated in the study. There were no incidents of uterine perforation or cervical trauma at the time of the DPF insertion. There were no reported adverse effects attributable to the DPF. On second-look hysteroscopy, 20 (87%) of the 23 women had no IUAs., Conclusion: The DPF is a novel, easy-to-apply, and acceptable device to prevent IUAs, with very promising initial safety and efficacy data., (Copyright © 2021 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility., Objectives: To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)., Search Methods: We searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information., Main Results: Two studies met the inclusion criteria.1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison.2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI., Authors' Conclusions: Uncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low-quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Objective: To gain insight in the current ideas on, and implementation of hysteroscopy amongst practicing gynaecologists in the Netherlands and Flanders., Study Design: In August 2016 an electronic questionnaire was sent to practising gynaecologist members of the Dutch (N = 591) and Flemish (N = 586) Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology., Results: The response rate for the Netherlands was 15.4% (91/591), and for Flanders 27.0% (158/586). Responding gynaecologists have a preference for hysteroscopy for diagnosing and treating most intrauterine pathology. Flemish respondents are more hesitant in opting for hysteroscopy instead of curettage for treatment of polyps and placental remnants. There appears to be a wide diffusion of diagnostic and basic operative hysteroscopy. In contrast to Flanders, responding hysteroscopists from the Netherlands more often perform office hysteroscopic procedures. Hysteroscopic procedures, and office procedures in particular, are now educated during residency. Therefore, recently graduated gynaecologists have a preference for this technique., Conclusion: Our survey confirms that nowadays the focus of treating intrauterine pathology is on less invasive techniques and preserving the uterus. Dutch responding hysteroscopists have more expertise concerning office hysteroscopy than their Flemish colleagues. Future research on the cost-effectiveness of and optimisation of patient comfort during office hysteroscopy is needed to support its further implementation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Observational evidence suggests a potential benefit with several anti-adhesion therapies in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy (e.g. insertion of an intrauterine device or balloon, hormonal treatment, barrier gels or human amniotic membrane grafting) for decreasing intrauterine adhesions (IUAs)., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy, following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility., Search Methods: We searched the following databases from inception to June 2017: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO); MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL and other electronic sources of trials, including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, and we contacted experts in the field. We also searched reference lists of appropriate papers., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and IUAs present at second-look hysteroscopy, along with mean adhesion scores and severity of IUAs., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated quality of evidence using the GRADE method., Main Results: The overall quality of the evidence was low to very low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias related to blinding of participants and personnel, indirectness and imprecision. We identified 16 RCTs comparing a device versus no treatment (two studies; 90 women), hormonal treatment versus no treatment or placebo (two studies; 136 women), device combined with hormonal treatment versus no treatment (one study; 20 women), barrier gel versus no treatment (five studies; 464 women), device with graft versus device without graft (three studies; 190 women), one type of device versus another device (one study; 201 women), gel combined with hormonal treatment and antibiotics versus hormonal treatment with antibiotics (one study; 52 women) and device combined with gel versus device (one study; 120 women). The total number of participants was 1273, but data on 1133 women were available for analysis. Only two of 16 studies included 100% infertile women; in all other studies, the proportion was variable or unknown.No study reported live birth, but some (five studies) reported outcomes that were used as surrogate outcomes for live birth (term delivery or ongoing pregnancy). Anti-adhesion therapy versus placebo or no treatment following operative hysteroscopy.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the use of a device or hormonal treatment compared to no treatment or placebo with respect to term delivery or ongoing pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 2.12; 107 women; 2 studies; I² = 0%; very-low-quality evidence).There were fewer IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy using a device with or without hormonal treatment or hormonal treatment or barrier gels compared with no treatment or placebo (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60; 560 women; 8 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 9 (95% CI 5 to 17). Comparisons of different anti-adhesion therapies following operative hysteroscopyIt was unclear whether there was a difference between the use of a device combined with graft versus device only for the outcome of ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.83; 180 women; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). There were fewer IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy using a device with or without graft/gel or gel combined with hormonal treatment and antibiotics compared with using a device only or hormonal treatment combined with antibiotics, but the findings of this meta-analysis were affected by evidence quality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83; 451 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Implications for clinical practiceThe quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The effectiveness of anti-adhesion treatment for improving key reproductive outcomes or for decreasing IUAs following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women remains uncertain. Implications for researchMore research is needed to assess the comparative safety and (cost-)effectiveness of different anti-adhesion treatments compared to no treatment or other interventions for improving key reproductive outcomes in subfertile women.

Objective: To critically appraise studies comparing benefits and harms in women with benign disease without prolapse undergoing hysterectomy by natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) versus laparoscopy., Study Design: We followed the PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and cohort studies comparing NOTES with laparoscopy assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) or total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) in women bound to undergo removal of a non-prolapsed uterus for benign disease. Two authors searched and selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias independently. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or arbitration., Results: We did not find RCTs but retrieved two retrospective cohort studies comparing NOTES with LAVH. The study quality as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was acceptable. Both studies reported no conversions. The operative time in women treated by NOTES was shorter compared to LAVH: the mean difference (MD) was -22.04min (95% CI -28.00min to -16.08min; 342 women; 2 studies). There were no differences for complications in women treated by NOTES compared to LAVH: the risk ratio (RR) was 0.57 (95% CI 0.17-1.91; 342 women; 2 studies). The length of stay was shorter in women treated by NOTES versus LAVH: the MD was -0.42days (95% CI -0.59days to -0.25days; 342 women; 2 studies). There were no differences for the median VAS scores at 12h between women treated by NOTES (median 2, range 0-6) or by LAVH (median 2, range 0-6) (48 women, 1 study). There were no differences in the median additional analgesic dose request in women treated by NOTES (median 0, range 0-6) or by LAVH (median 1, range 0-5) (48 women, 1 study). The hospital charges for treatment by NOTES were higher compared to LAVH: the mean difference was 137.00 € (95% CI 88.95-185.05 €; 294 women; 1 study)., Conclusions: At the present NOTES should be considered as a technique under evaluation for use in gynaecological surgery. RCTs are needed to demonstrate its effectiveness., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) uses natural body orifices to access the cavities of the human body to perform surgery. NOTES limits the magnitude of surgical trauma and has the potential to reduce postoperative pain. This is the first randomised study in women bound to undergo hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease comparing NOTES with classical laparoscopy., Methods and Analysis: All women aged 18-70 years, regardless of parity, consulting at our practice with an indication for hysterectomy due to benign gynaecological disease will be eligible. After stratification according to uterine size on clinical examination, participants will be randomised to be treated by laparoscopy or by transvaginal NOTES. Participants will be evaluated on day 0, days 1-7 and at 3 and 6 months. The following data will be collected: the proportion of women successfully treated by removing the uterus by the intended approach as randomised; the proportion of women admitted to the inpatient hospital; postoperative pain scores measured twice daily by the women from day 1 to 7; the total amount of analgesics used from day 1 to 7; readmission during the first 6 weeks; presence and intensity of dyspareunia and sexual well-being at baseline, 3 and 6 months (Short Sexual Functioning Scale (SSFS) scale); duration of surgery; postoperative infection or other surgical complications; direct and indirect costs incurred up to 6 weeks following surgery. The primary outcome will be the proportion of women successfully treated by the intended technique; all other outcomes are secondary., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved on 1 December 2015 by the Ethics Committee of the Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium. The first patient was randomised on 17 December 2015. The last participant randomised should be treated before 30 November 2017. The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings within 4 years after starting recruitment., Trial Registration Number: NCT02631837; Pre-results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Limited observational evidence suggests potential benefit for subfertile women undergoing operative hysteroscopy with several anti-adhesion therapies (e.g. insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) or balloon, hormonal treatment, barrier gels or human amniotic membrane grafting) to decrease intrauterine adhesions (IUAs)., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility., Search Methods: We searched the following databases from inception to March 2015: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and other electronic sources of trials, including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, and we contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised comparisons of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women. The primary outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and IUAs present at second look, along with their mean adhesion scores or severity., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method., Main Results: We included 11 randomised studies on use of an inserted device versus no treatment (two studies; 84 women) or another inserted device (one study; 162 women), hormonal treatment versus no treatment or placebo (two studies; 131 women), gel versus no treatment (five studies; 383 women) and graft versus no graft (one study; 43 women). The total number of women randomly assigned was 924, but data on only 803 participants were available for analysis. The proportion of subfertile women varied from 0% (one study; 41 women), to less than 50% (six studies; 487 women), to 100% (one study; 43 women); the proportion was unknown in three studies (232 women). Most studies (9/11) were at high risk of bias with respect to one or more methodological criteria.We found no evidence of differences between anti-adhesion therapy and no treatment or placebo with respect to live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 2.13, P value = 0.98, three studies, 150 women; low-quality evidence) and no statistical heterogeneity (Chi(2) = 0.14, df = 2 (P value = 0.93), I(2) = 0%).Anti-adhesion therapy was associated with fewer IUAs at any second-look hysteroscopy when compared with no treatment or placebo (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.64, P value = 0.0005, seven studies, 528 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no statistical heterogeneity (Chi(2) = 2.65, df = 5 (P value = 0.75), I(2) = 0%). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 9 (95% CI 6 to 20).No evidence suggested differences between an IUD and an intrauterine balloon with respect to IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.37, P value = 0.54, one study, 162 women; very low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Implications for clinical practiceThe quality of the evidence retrieved was low or very low for all outcomes. Clinical effectiveness of anti-adhesion treatment for improving key reproductive outcomes or for decreasing IUAs following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women remains uncertain. Implications for researchAdditional studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of different anti-adhesion therapies for improving reproductive outcomes in subfertile women treated by operative hysteroscopy.

Background: Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are detectable in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility., Objectives: To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register (8 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 12 October 2014), EMBASE (inception to 12 October 2014), CINAHL (inception to 11 October 2014) and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from January 2013 to October 2014) and we contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised comparisons between operative hysteroscopy versus control in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or undergoing IUI, IVF or ICSI and suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasonography, saline infusion/gel instillation sonography, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information., Main Results: We retrieved 12 randomised trials possibly addressing the research questions. Only two studies (309 women) met the inclusion criteria. Neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth or procedure related complications. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the intervention group treated with hysteroscopic myomectomy and the control group having regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for the outcome of clinical pregnancy. A large clinical benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy cannot be excluded: if 21% of women with fibroids achieve a clinical pregnancy having timed intercourse only, the evidence suggests that 39% of women (95% CI 21% to 58%) will achieve a successful outcome following the hysteroscopic removal of the fibroids (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17, P = 0.06, 94 women, very low quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the comparison groups for the outcome of miscarriage (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.85, P = 0.50, 30 clinical pregnancies in 94 women, very low quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI can increase the chance of a clinical pregnancy compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy: if 28% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy with a simple diagnostic hysteroscopy, the evidence suggests that 63% of women (95% CI 50% to 76%) will achieve a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96, P < 0.00001, 204 women, moderate quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: A large benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the chance of clinical pregnancy in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility cannot be excluded. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. More randomised studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic removal of suspected endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Background: Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are detectable in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility., Objectives: To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register (6 August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (T he Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1950 to October 2012), EMBASE (1974 to October 2012), CINAHL (from inception to October 2012) and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from January 2008 to October 2012) and we contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised comparisons between operative hysteroscopy versus control in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or undergoing IUI, IVF or ICSI and suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasonography, saline infusion/gel instillation sonography, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information., Main Results: Two studies met the inclusion criteria and neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth and complications from the procedure. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, there is no evidence of benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy compared to regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for clinical pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.2, P = 0.06, 94 women) and miscarriage (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.0, P = 0.47, 94 women) (very low-quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI increases the odds of clinical pregnancy (experimental event rate (EER) 63%) compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy only (control event rate (CER) 28%) (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.5 to 8.0, P < 0.00001, 204 women, high-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Hysteroscopic myomectomy might increase the odds of clinical pregnancy in women with unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, but the evidence is at present not conclusive. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI might increase the clinical pregnancy rate. More randomised studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic removal of suspected endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.