Literature DB >> 27597661

Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal Systems: A Randomized In Vitro Comparison.

Deidre Meulenbroeks1, Tjalina W O Hamerlynck2, Sema Saglam-Kara3, Nadia K Van Rijssel4, Huib A A M Van Vliet3, Benedictus C Schoot5.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To compare polyp resection time and myoma resection rate using 2 hysteroscopic tissue removal systems.
DESIGN: Prospective randomized in vitro trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).
SETTING: Clinical skills laboratory of a non-university teaching hospital. SAMPLES: Polyp surrogate and myoma tissue.
INTERVENTIONS: Hysteroscopic tissue removal with the TRUCLEAR system, using the TRUCLEAR INCISOR 2.9 (TI), TRUCLEAR INCISOR Plus (TIP), or TRUCLEAR ULTRA Plus (TUP) device, and the MyoSure system, using the MyoSure Lite (ML), MyoSure Classic (MC), or MyoSure XL (MXL) device.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-two fragments of umbilical cord weighing 5 g, as a surrogate for polyps, were randomly allocated to 4 types of devices (TI, TIP, ML, and MC). Three consecutive fragments were removed using a single device. In addition, 18 pieces of myoma tissue were divided into 2 equal parts and randomly allocated to 2 types of devices (TUP and MXL). A new device was used for each fragment. Each type of device was tested at 2 vacuum settings. When removing 1 polyp, the TIP (median time, 2:33 minutes [interquartile range (IQR), 1:32-3:27 minutes]), the MC (median time, 3:15 minutes [IQR, 2:42-3:42 minutes]), and the ML (median time, 3:00 minutes [IQR, 2:16-3:25 minutes]) performed significantly faster than the TI (median time, 14:09 minutes [IQR, 13:44-14:36 minutes]), by 84%, 78%, and 82% respectively (p < .001). The TIP performed 80% faster than the TI (median time, 2:27 minutes [IQR, 1:45-2:46 minutes] vs 10:37 minutes [IQR, 8:38-13:44 minutes]; p < .001) when removing a second polyp. For removal of a third polyp, the TIP performed significantly faster (median time, 2:22 minutes [IQR, 1:32-3:07 minutes]) than the TI (median time, 8:35 minutes [IQR, 7:37-9:03 minutes]) and the ML (median time, 10:02 minutes [IQR, 9:51-10:18 minutes]), by 74% and 78%, respectively (p < .001). The performance of the ML decreased (p < .001) during removal of 3 consecutive tissue samples. For myoma tissue, the estimated mean resection rate of the TUP (2.96 g/min [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.32-3.77 g/min]) was 24% (95% CI 0.2%-52.4%) higher than the mean resection rate of the MXL (2.39 g/min [95% CI 1.87-3.05 g/min]; p = .048). The resection rate of the MXL adjusted for vacuum setting declined by 3% per unit increase in myoma volume (95% CI, -0.6% to -5.7%; p = .02). For the TUP, no linear association was found (0.4%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 3.0%; p = .72).
CONCLUSION: In vitro comparison of the removal of surrogate polyps showed that although the larger TIP, MC, and ML devices were significantly faster than the TI for removal of 1 polyp, only the TIP was consistently faster than the TI for consecutive removal of polyps. The performance of the ML decreased significantly during removal of 3 consecutive tissue samples, making it slower than the TIP with a similar window size in the third run. For removal of myoma tissue, the resection rate of the TUP was significantly higher than that of the MXL, and the resection rate of the MXL decreased with increasing myoma volume. In vitro testing can provide useful information on the time and rate of hysteroscopic tissue removal.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hysteroscopic morcellation; Hysteroscopy; Myoma; Polyp

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27597661     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.829

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  6 in total

1.  The Impact of Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal Systems on Histopathologic Analysis for Benign and Cancerous Endometrial Pathology: An Ex Vivo Study.

Authors:  Steven R Lindheim; Kimberly Lincenberg; Michelle A Wood; Emily Kemner; Megan K Burns; Daniel L Hood; Rose Maxwell; Miryoung Lee
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2018-09-11

Review 2.  Hysteroscopic tissue removal systems for the treatment of intrauterine pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  X Yin; J Cheng; S H Ansari; R Campo; W Di; W Li; G Bigatti
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2018-12

3.  Mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal or hysteroscopic morcellator: understanding the past to predict the future. A narrative review.

Authors:  M Franchini; O Ceci; P Casadio; J Carugno; G Giarrè; G Gubbini; U Catena; M Chiara de Angelis; A Di Spiezio Sardo
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2021-06-10

4.  Comparison of Hysteroscopic Morcellation Versus Resectoscopy in Treatment of Patients with Endometrial Lesions: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Fangying Ren; Guannan Huang; Xue Wang; Xuehui Li; Jianning Cai
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2022-07-18

5.  Clinical evaluation of improved MyoSure hysteroscopic tissue removal system for the resection of type II submucosal myomas.

Authors:  Yufei Liang; Yuefang Ren; Zeqiu Wan; Lihua Guo; Jie Dong; Yun Chen; Liping Lv
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  A Mini-Review of Office Hysteroscopic Techniques for Endometrial Tissue Sampling in Postmenopausal Bleeding.

Authors:  Sergio Haimovich; Tanvir Tanvir
Journal:  J Midlife Health       Date:  2021-04-17
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.