Ozge Tunçalp1, A Metin Gülmezoglu, João Paulo Souza. 1. Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21205.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incomplete miscarriage is a major problem that should be effectively managed with safe and appropriate procedures. Surgical evacuation of the uterus for management of incomplete miscarriage usually involves vacuum aspiration or sharp curettage. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and effectiveness of surgical uterine evacuation methods for management of incomplete miscarriage. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (July 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials where different surgical methods were used to manage incomplete miscarriage were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted population characteristics, settings, and exclusion criteria, in addition to outcomes such as complications of the procedure, duration, need for re-evacuation, blood transfusion, and analgesia/anesthesia. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (involving 550 women) were included. Vacuum aspiration was associated with statistically significantly decreased blood loss (mean difference (MD) -17.10 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.05 to -10.15 ml), less pain during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90), and shorter duration of the procedure (MD -1.20 minutes, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.87 minutes), than sharp metal curettage, in the single study that evaluated these outcomes in 357 women. Serious complications such as uterine perforation and other morbidity were rare and the sample sizes of the trials were not large enough to evaluate small or moderate differences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the review indicates that vacuum aspiration is safe, quick to perform, and less painful than sharp curettage, and should be recommended for use in the management of incomplete miscarriage, the results are based on data from only one study. Analgesia and sedation should be provided as necessary for the procedure.
BACKGROUND: Incomplete miscarriage is a major problem that should be effectively managed with safe and appropriate procedures. Surgical evacuation of the uterus for management of incomplete miscarriage usually involves vacuum aspiration or sharp curettage. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and effectiveness of surgical uterine evacuation methods for management of incomplete miscarriage. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (July 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials where different surgical methods were used to manage incomplete miscarriage were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted population characteristics, settings, and exclusion criteria, in addition to outcomes such as complications of the procedure, duration, need for re-evacuation, blood transfusion, and analgesia/anesthesia. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (involving 550 women) were included. Vacuum aspiration was associated with statistically significantly decreased blood loss (mean difference (MD) -17.10 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.05 to -10.15 ml), less pain during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90), and shorter duration of the procedure (MD -1.20 minutes, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.87 minutes), than sharp metal curettage, in the single study that evaluated these outcomes in 357 women. Serious complications such as uterine perforation and other morbidity were rare and the sample sizes of the trials were not large enough to evaluate small or moderate differences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the review indicates that vacuum aspiration is safe, quick to perform, and less painful than sharp curettage, and should be recommended for use in the management of incomplete miscarriage, the results are based on data from only one study. Analgesia and sedation should be provided as necessary for the procedure.
Authors: Jun Zhang; Jerry M Gilles; Kurt Barnhart; Mitchell D Creinin; Carolyn Westhoff; Margaret M Frederick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-08-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Maria Lisa Odland; Gladys Membe-Gadama; Ursula Kafulafula; Geir W Jacobsen; James Kumwenda; Elisabeth Darj Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mugove Gerald Madziyire; Chelsea B Polis; Taylor Riley; Elizabeth A Sully; Onikepe Owolabi; Tsungai Chipato Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jung Yeon Park; Hyo Jeong Ahn; Ba Raem Yoo; Kyu Ri Hwang; Taek Sang Lee; Hye Won Jeon; Sun Min Kim; Byoung Jae Kim Journal: Obstet Gynecol Sci Date: 2018-03-02
Authors: Jay Ghosh; Argyro Papadopoulou; Adam J Devall; Hannah C Jeffery; Leanne E Beeson; Vivian Do; Malcolm J Price; Aurelio Tobias; Özge Tunçalp; Antonella Lavelanet; Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu; Arri Coomarasamy; Ioannis D Gallos Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-06-01