Publication:
Feasibility of Basket Technique Compared to the Office Hysteroscopy to Treat Endometrial Polyps in Patients Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorÇakıroğlu, Yiğit
dc.contributor.authorZeteroğlu, Şahin
dc.contributor.authorÇalışkan, Eray
dc.contributor.authorDoğan, Ozan
dc.contributor.authorBaşbuğ, Alper
dc.contributor.authorEllibeş Kaya, Aşkı
dc.contributor.institutionKocaeli Üniversitesi
dc.contributor.institutionAcıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi
dc.contributor.institutionBahçeşehir Üniversitesi
dc.contributor.institutionT.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı
dc.contributor.institutionDüzce Üniversitesi
dc.contributor.institutionDüzce Üniversitesi
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-20T20:01:00Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.date.submitted23.10.2019
dc.description.abstractObjective: The authors aim to compare the results of office hysteroscopic basketpolypectomy with operative hysteroscopy in endometrial polyps detected prior to in vitro fertilization(IVF). Material and Methods: Infertile patients, who underwent polypectomy before treatment,were analyzed retrospectively. Patients who underwent basket polypectomy as officehysteroscopy (Group 1, n=55) and hysteroscopic polypectomy (Group 2, n=49) were included inthe study. Demographic data, operation time, success rates, and pregnancy rates after operationwere compared between the two groups. Results: The mean operating time for Group 1 was 14.98±3.67 min, while that for Group 2 was 18.84±3.30 min (p=0.001). The success rates between thegroups were similar (96.3% vs. 100%, p=0.652), without any major complications. Further, the biochemical(52.7% vs. 48.9%, OR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.55-2.59, p=0.696), clinical (43.6% vs. 40.8%, OR1.16, 95% CI: 0.52-2.59, p=0.712), ongoing pregnancy (38.1% vs. 34.6%, OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.52-2.81, p=0.647), live births (34.5% vs. 28.6%, OR 1.3116, 95% CI:0.57-3.03, p=0.514), early spontaneousmiscarriage (5.5% vs. 6.1, OR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.17-4.60, p=0.884) and spontaneous pregnancy(5.5 vs. 4.1, OR 0.745,%95 CI: 0.21-8.4, p=0.745) rates after polypectomy were observed to be similarin both the groups. Conclusion: Hysteroscopic basket polypectomy was not inferior to operativehysteroscopy regarding success rates and was found to be superior in terms of operating timein patients planning in vitro fertilization
dc.identifier.doi10.5336/jcog.2018-62152
dc.identifier.endpage139
dc.identifier.issn2619-9467
dc.identifier.issue4
dc.identifier.startpage132
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14719/5419
dc.identifier.volume28
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.journalJournal of Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology
dc.subjectKadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum
dc.titleFeasibility of Basket Technique Compared to the Office Hysteroscopy to Treat Endometrial Polyps in Patients Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization
dc.typeResearch Article
dcterms.referencesAmerican Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.\r\nAAGL practice report: practice guidelines\r\nfor the diagnosis and management of\r\nendometrial polyps. J Minim Invasive Gynecol\r\n2012,19(1):3-10.,Dreisler E, Stampe Sorensen S, Ibsen\r\nPH, Lose G. Prevalence of endometrial\r\npolyps and abnormal uterine bleeding\r\nin a Danish population aged 20-74 years.\r\nUltrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009,33(1):102-\r\n8.,Elbehery MM, Nouh AA, Mohamed ML, Alanwar\r\nAA, Abd-Allah SH, Shalaby SM. Insulinlike\r\ngrowth factor binding protein-1 and\r\nglycodelin levels in uterine flushing before and\r\nafter hysteroscopic polypectomy. Clin Lab\r\n2011,57(11-12):953-7.,Donaghay M, Lessey BA. Uterine receptivity:\r\nalterations associated with benign 591 gynecological\r\ndisease. Semin Reprod Med\r\n2007,25(6):461-75.,Hinckley MD, Milki AA. 1000 office-based\r\nhysteroscopies prior to in vitro fertilization:\r\nfeasibility and findings. JSLS 2004,8(2):103-\r\n7.,Shokeir TA, Shalan HM, El-Shafei MM. Significance\r\nof endometrial polyps detected hysteroscopically\r\nin eumenorrheic infertile\r\nwomen. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2004,30(2):\r\n84-9.,Stamatellos I, Apostolides A, Stamatopoulos\r\nP, Bontis J. Pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic\r\npolypectomy depending on the size or\r\nnumber of the polyps. Arch Gynecol Obstet\r\n2008,277(5):395-9.,Kodaman PH. Hysteroscopic polypectomy for\r\nwomen undergoing IVF treatment: when is it\r\nnecessary? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol\r\n2016,28(3):184-90.,Pérez-Medina T, Bajo-Arenas J, Salazar F,\r\nRedondo T, Sanfrutos L, Alvarez P, et al. Endometrial\r\npolyps and their implication in the\r\npregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine\r\ninsemination: a prospective, randomized\r\nstudy. Hum Reprod 2005,20(6):\r\n1632-5.,Yang JH, Yang PK, Chen MJ, Chen SU, Yang\r\nYS. Management of endometrial polyps incidentally\r\ndiagnosed during IVF: a case-control\r\nstudy. Reprod Biomed Online 2017,34(3):285-\r\n90.,Karayalçin R, Ozyer S, Ozcan S, Uzunlar O,\r\nGürlek B, Moraloğlu O, et al. Office hysteroscopy\r\nimproves pregnancy rates following\r\nIVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2012,25(3):261-\r\n6.,Dealberti D, Riboni F, Cosma S, Pisani C,\r\nMontella F, Saitta S, et al. Feasibility and 570\r\nacceptability of office-based polypectomy with\r\na 16F mini-resectoscope: a multicenter clinical\r\nstudy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol\r\n2016,23(3):418-24.,Di Spiezio Sardo A, Di Carlo C, Minozzi\r\nS, Spinelli M, Pistotti V, Alviggi C, et al.\r\nEfficacy of 532 hysteroscopy in improving\r\nreproductive outcomes of infertile\r\ncouples: a systematic review 533 and metaanalysis.\r\nHum Reprod Update 2016,22(4):\r\n479-96.,Sudano MC, Vitale SG, Rapisarda AM, Carastro\r\nD, Tropea A, Zizza G. The REP-b (removal\r\nof endometrial pathologies-basket) in-office\r\nhysteroscopy. Updates Surg 2016,68(4):407-\r\n12.,Dormia G, Minervini MS, Malagola G, Bertana\r\nF, Gonnella G, Mazza L, et al. [The basquet in\r\nday hospital]. Arch Ital Urol Androl\r\n1998,70(3):131-2.,Golan A, Eilat E, Ron-El R, Herman A, Soffer\r\nY, Bukovsky I. Hysteroscopy is superior to\r\nhysterosalpingography in infertilityinvestigation.\r\nActa Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996,75(7):\r\n654-6.,Bittencourt CA, Dos Santos Simões R,\r\nBernardo WM, Fuchs LFP, Soares Júnior JM,\r\nPastore AR, et al. Accuracy of saline contrast\r\nsonohysterography in detection of endometrial\r\npolyps and submucosal leiomyomas in\r\nwomen of reproductive age with abnormal\r\nuterine bleeding: systematic review and metaanalysis.\r\nUltrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017,50\r\n(1):32-9.,Bosteels J, Kasius J, Weyers S, Broekmans\r\nFJ, Mol BW, D’Hooghe TM. Hysteroscopy\r\nfor treating subfertility associated with suspected\r\nmajor uterine cavity abnormalities.\r\nCochrane Database Syst Rev 2015,21(2):\r\nCD009461.,Mouhayar Y, Yin O, Mumford SL, Segars JH.\r\nHysteroscopic polypectomy prior to infertility treatment:\r\na cost analysis and systematic review. Eur\r\nJ Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017,213:107-15.,Elsetohy KA, Askalany AH, HassanM, Dawood\r\nZ. Routine office hysteroscopy prior to ICSI vs.\r\nICSI alone in patients with normal transvaginal\r\nultrasound: a randomized controlled trial. Arch\r\nGynecol Obstet 2015,291(1):193-9.,Ghaffari F, Arabipoor A, Bagheri Lankarani N,\r\nHosseini F, Bahmanabadi A. Hysteroscopic\r\npolypectomy without cycle cancellation in\r\nIVF/ICSI cycles: a cross-sectional study. Eur J\r\nObstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016,205:37-\r\n42.,Tiras B, Korucuoglu U, Polat M, Zeyneloglu\r\nHB, Saltik A, Yarali H. Management of endometrial\r\npolyps diagnosed before or during\r\nICSI cycles. Reprod BioMed Online\r\n2012,24(1):123-8.,Kremer C, Duffy S, Moroney M. Patient satisfaction\r\nwith outpatient hysteroscopy versus\r\nday case hysteroscopy: randomized controlled\r\ntrial. Br Med J 2000,29(7230):279-82.
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.indexed.atTRDizin

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Feasibility of Basket Technique Compared to the Office Hysteroscopy to Treat Endometrial Polyps in Patients Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization.pdf
Size:
1.47 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

TR-Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu