See-and-treat in-office hysteroscopy versus operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of retained products of conception: A retrospective study.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of in-office hysteroscopy with a see-and-treat approach with that of operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of retained products of conception (RPOC). METHODS: We retrospectively identified all consecutive patients who underwent hysteroscopic treatment of RPOC between 2015 and 2019. We excluded patients with RPOC larger than 2 cm at preoperative transvaginal ultrasounds. Between 2015 and 2017, all hysteroscopic removals of RPOC were performed by operative hysteroscopy. Between 2018 and 2019, all cases of RPOC less than 2 cm in size were hysteroscopically removed by the see-and-treat approach in the office setting. Sociodemographic, clinical, and procedure characteristics along with complications were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 119 women underwent hysteroscopic removal of RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm: 53 patients by in-office hysteroscopy, and 66 by operative hysteroscopy. The two groups were similar in preoperative characteristics. Although the time required to complete the RPOC removal was similar, the total procedure and assistant time were significantly higher in the operative hysteroscopy group (p < 0.001). Moreover, operative hysteroscopy was associated with a higher proportion of cases complicated by excessive bleeding, cervical tear, or uterine perforation (p = 0.016). Failure to complete the procedure was similarly reported in the two groups (p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In-office hysteroscopy with the see-and-treat approach for RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm appears as effective as operative hysteroscopy, but safer. In-office hysteroscopy may be considered the first choice for treating RPOC equal to or smaller than 2 cm.

The association between congenital uterine anomalies and perinatal outcomes - does type of defect matters?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between congenital uterine anomalies (CUA) and adverse perinatal outcomes stratified by type of anomaly. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all women delivered in one university-affiliated medical center between 2010 and 2017 with CUA. Multiple pregnancies and pregnancies complicated by fetal anomalies were excluded. Maternal and short-term neonatal outcomes were evaluated and compared between women with unification defects (unicornuate, bicornuate, or uterus didelphys), and canalization defects represented by septate uterus. Univariate analysis was utilized followed by multivariate analysis to adjust for confounders. p < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Among 167 pregnancies with CUA, 92 (55.1%) had bicornuate uterus, 32 (19.1%) septate uterus, 26 (15.6%) didelphys uterus, and 17 (10.1%) unicornuate uterus. Maternal demographics and obstetric characteristics were similar between women with unification and canalization defects. The entire cohort had high rates of preterm delivery (PTD), malpresentation, and cesarean delivery (CD) (25.7%, 42.5%, and 63.5%, respectively). In comparison to unification defects, pregnancies in women with canalization defects (septate uterus), had increased risk for PTD <32 weeks (12.5% vs. 2.9%, p = .02), and placental abruption (12.5% vs. 3%, p = .02), however, a lower overall rate of CD (46.9% vs. 67.4%, p = .03). Following adjustment to confounders (age, BMI, nulliparity, chronic hypertension, and smoking) none of the results remained statistically significant. There were no differences in neonatal outcomes between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, women with CUA have a high prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes. However, outcome does not differ by type of anomaly.