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

18 July 2022: Meta-Analysis

Fangying Ren ^1BEFG* , Guannan Huang ^2BEF* , Xue Wang ^3CDE* , Xuehui Li ^4AD* , Jianning Cai ^5ACD*

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.936771

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e936771

Table 1 General information of the literature.

Study	Country	Age		Number of patients		Intervention measures		Experiment type of research	Outcomes*
Study	Country	Experimental	Control	Experimental	Control	Experimental	Control	Experiment type of research	Outcomes*
van Dongen et al, 2008	Netherlands	48.2±12.4	49.0±10.9	30	30	Hysterectomy morcellation with TRUCLEAR system	Conventional resectoscopy	Randomized controlled trial	2, 3, 4
Smith et al, 2014	UK	54.3±12.7	54.9±14.2	62	59	Hysterectomy morcellation with TRUCLEAR system	Conventional resectoscopy with bipolar Versapoint	Randomized controlled clinical trial	2, 4
Pampalona et al, 2015	Spain	55	52	63	64	Hysterectomy morcellation with TRUCLEAR system	Conventional resectoscopy with bipolar Versapoint system	Randomized controlled clinical trial	1, 2, 4
Hamerlynck et al, 2015	Netherlands	50±10	51±12	44	40	Hysterectomy morcellation with TRUCLEAR system	Conventional resectoscopy	Randomized controlled trial	1, 2, 3, 4
Stoll et al, 2020	France	56.2±12.3	52.8±9.9	45	45	Reusable hysteroscopic morcellator with TRUCLEAR system	Conventional resectoscopy with a Fr 21 or Fr 27 monopolar resector or a Fr 26 bipolar resector (Karl Storz GmbH, Tuttlingen, Germany)	Single-center randomized prospective single-blind trial	1, 2, 3, 4
van Wessel et al, 2021	Netherlands, Belgium	45±7	44±8	45	38	Hysterectomy morcellation with TRUCLEAR system	Conventional resectoscopy with bipolar Versapoint system	Randomized controlled trial	1, 2, 3, 4
^* 1. Procedure time; 2. Operating time; 3. Fluid deficit; 4. Success rate.