Reproductive and obstetrical outcomes after treatment of retained products of conception: hysteroscopic removal vs ultrasound-guided electric vacuum aspiration, a prospective follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, curettage has been the most widely performed surgical intervention for removing retained products of conception. However, hysteroscopic removal is increasingly performed as an alternative because of the potentially lower risk of intrauterine adhesions and higher rates of complete removal. Until recently, studies comparing curettage with hysteroscopic removal regarding reproductive and obstetrical outcomes were limited, and data conflicting. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess reproductive and obstetrical outcomes in women wishing to conceive after removal of retained products of conception by hysteroscopy or ultrasound-guided electric vacuum aspiration. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective long-term follow-up study, conducted in 3 teaching hospitals and 1 university hospital. Patients were included from April 2015 until June 2022 for follow-up, either in a randomized controlled, nonblinded trial on the risk of intrauterine adhesions after removal of retained products of conception, or in a cohort alongside the randomized trial. Women with an ultrasonographic image suggestive of retained products of conception ranging from 1 to 4 cm were eligible. Surgical procedures in the randomized controlled trial were hysteroscopic morcellation or ultrasound-guided electric vacuum aspiration. In the cohort study, hysteroscopic treatment included hysteroscopic morcellation or cold loop resection compared with ultrasound-guided electric vacuum aspiration. RESULTS: A total of 261 out of 305 patients (85.6%) were available for follow-up after removal of retained products of conception, resulting in a cohort of 171 women after hysteroscopic removal and 90 women after removal by ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration. Respectively, 92 of 171 women (53.8%) in the hysteroscopic removal group and 56 of 90 (62.2%) in the electric vacuum aspiration group wished to conceive (P=.192). Subsequent pregnancy rates were 88 of 91 (96.7%) after hysteroscopic removal and 52 of 56 (92.9%) after electric vacuum aspiration (P=.428). The live birth rates were 61 of 80 (76.3%) and 37 of 48 (77.1%) after hysteroscopic removal and electric vacuum aspiration, respectively (P=.914), with 8 of 88 pregnancies (9.1%) in the hysteroscopic removal group and 4 of 52 (7.7%) in the electric vacuum aspiration group still ongoing at follow-up (P=1.00). The median time to conception was 8.2 weeks (interquartile range, 5.0-17.2) in the hysteroscopic removal group and 6.9 weeks (interquartile range, 5.0-12.1) in the electric vacuum aspiration group (P=.262). The overall placental complication rate was 13 of 80 (16.3%) in the hysteroscopic removal group and 11 of 48 (22.9%) in the electric vacuum aspiration group (P=.350). CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopic removal and ultrasound-guided electric vacuum aspiration of retained products of conception seem to have no significantly different effects on subsequent live birth rate, pregnancy rate, time to conception, or pregnancy complications. Reproductive and obstetrical outcomes after removal of retained products of conception are reassuring, albeit with a high risk of placental complications.

Manual morcellation (Resectr™ 9Fr) vs electromechanical morcellation (TruClear™) for hysteroscopic polypectomy: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Meta-analyses comparing hysteroscopic electromechanical morcellation with electrosurgical resection showed a shorter operating time for electromechanical morcellation, mainly for polypectomy. The Resectr™ 9Fr is a new hysteroscopic manual morcellator, designed to simplify this procedure. We aimed to compare manual with electromechanical morcellation for hysteroscopic polypectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This two-center randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was performed from 2018 to 2021 in the Catharina Hospital and the Ghent University Hospital. The study was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (NL6922; ICTRP ID: NTR7118). One hundred and forty women with polyps (between 8 and 20 mm) scheduled for hysteroscopic removal were randomized between manual (Resectr™ 9Fr) or electromechanical (TruClear™) morcellation. The primary outcome was time (instrumentation set-up, resection, and total procedure time). RESULTS: The non-inferiority margin for the primary outcome time was 1.3. Mean instrumentation set-up time was 10% shorter with the manual compared with the electromechanical morcellator (estimated mean ratio manual/electromechanical = 0.9; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-1.1). Mean resection time was 30% longer with the manual compared with the motor-driven system (estimated mean ratio manual/electromechanical = 1.3; 97.5% CI 0.9-1.9). Mean total procedure time was 10% longer with the manual compared with the electromechanical morcellator (estimated mean ratio manual/electromechanical = 1.1; 95% CI 0.91-1.298). The estimated odds (electromechanical/manual) of better surgeon's safety, effective and comfort scores were, respectively, 4.5 (95% CI 0.9-22.1), 7.0 (95% CI 1.5-31.9), and 5.9 (95% CI 1.1-30.3) times higher with the motor-driven compared with the manual morcellator. Conversion rates and incomplete resection rates were comparable in both groups (manual vs electromechanical) (7.6% [4/66] vs 2.9% [2/68] and 6.1% [4/66] vs 3.0% [2/66], respectively). No intraoperative and postoperative complications were registered. CONCLUSIONS: The manual morcellator was non-inferior to the electromechanical morcellator for hysteroscopic polypectomy in terms of mean instrumentation set-up time and total procedure time. Results on resection time were inconclusive. Conversion and incomplete resection rates were within the range reported in the literature. Surgeon's reported rating for both devices was high, however, in favor of the motor-driven tissue removal system.

Efficacy of Oral Nifedipine, Naproxen, or Placebo for Pain Relief During Diagnostic Hysteroscopy in an Office Setting: A Randomized Pilot Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare nifedipine, naproxen, or placebo for pain relief during diagnostic hysteroscopy. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Women scheduled for office diagnostic hysteroscopy (n = 60). INTERVENTIONS: Women received nifedipine (2 tablets of 10 mg), naproxen (2 tablets of 250 mg), or placebo (2 tablets of 500 mg lactose) 30 to 60 minutes prior to hysteroscopy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled in the study (21 in the nifedipine group, 19 in the naproxen group, and 20 in the placebo group). The median pain scores during hysteroscope insertion, measured on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), were 1 (interquartile range (IQR) 0-0), 2 (0-4) and 1 (0-1) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,14). The median VAS scores during hysteroscopy were 5 (IQR 2-7), 5 (4-8) and 5 (3-7) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,73). The median VAS scores immediately after hysteroscopy were 2 (IQR 0-4), 3 (0-6) and 3 (1-5) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,40). The median VAS scores 30 minutes after hysteroscopy were 1 (IQR 0-2), 1 (0-1) and 1 (0-2) in the nifedipine, naproxen and placebo group, respectively (P,63). Hysteroscope insertion failed in 1 case (naproxen group) because of cervica`l stenosis (P,32). Flushes, fatigue and vertigo, 30 minutes after the procedure, were significantly more prevalent in the nifedipine group compared to the naproxen (p < .001, p,03, p,03, respectively) and the placebo group (p < .001, p,01, p,01, respectively). Palpitations occurred only in the nifedipine group (p < .001). The day after the procedure, the headache was most prevalent in the nifedipine group compared to the naproxen group (p,001) and the placebo group (p,001). CONCLUSION: In our pilot study, pain relief and success rates for office diagnostic hysteroscopy were not significantly different between nifedipine, naproxen, and placebo. Nifedipine was associated with more, albeit tolerable, side-effects.

Clinical evaluation of a new hand-driven hysteroscopic tissue removal device, Resectr™ 5fr, for the resection of endometrial polyps in an office setting.

PURPOSE: A first clinical evaluation of a new hand-driven hysteroscopic tissue removal device, Resectr™ 5fr, for office polypectomy without any anesthesia. METHODS: Women with at least one small endometrial polyp were eligible. Hysteroscopic polypectomy was performed using the Resectr™ 5fr in an office setting, without any anesthesia. RESULTS: One hundred and two hysteroscopic polypectomies were included in the analysis. The median installation time was 1.9 min (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-2.1). The median time to complete polyp removal was 1.2 min (95% CI 0.8-1.6). The median surgeon's safety, practical, and comfort scores on a 5-point Likert scale were high (5 (5-5), 5 (4-5), and 5 (4-5), respectively). Women's pain score was low (median 1 (0-3)), whereas the satisfaction rate was high (median 5 (5-5)), both on a 5-point Likert scale. There were two conversions (hysteroscopic scissors (n = 1), a new Resectr™ 5fr device (n = 1)). There was one incomplete procedure (tissue hardness). CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopic removal of small polyps, using the [Formula: see text] 5fr in an office setting is feasible in terms of installation and resection time. Surgeon's practical, comfort, and safety scores are high, whereas women report low pain scores and high satisfaction rates.  TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Clinical Trial Registry (NTR 7119, NL6923): https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6923 . Date of registration: 27/03/2018.

The use of an intrauterine balloon in preventing adhesion recurrence after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis: a feasibility study.

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a heart-shaped intrauterine balloon as antiadhesion method immediately after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis in terms of surgeon's and patient's experience. This feasibility study was performed at the Ghent University Hospital (Belgium) from 2018 to 2020. A heart-shaped intrauterine balloon was inserted in 10 women immediately after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis and left in place for 7 days under antibiotic prophylaxis. Insertion and removal of the balloon was easy in 7 women out of 10 (5-point Likert scale), and successful in all cases. The median pain score during balloon wearing on a visual analogue scale (VAS) was 1.7 (IQR 1.0-4.2). Seven out of 10 women were satisfied (5-point Likert scale). Eight out of 10 women would probably or certainly recommend the procedure to a friend (5-point Likert scale) and would use the balloon again. The heart-shaped intrauterine balloon as antiadhesion method is feasible in terms of surgeon's and patient's experience. Designing a proper Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is worth the effort. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03446755). Initial release on 27th February 2018.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Intrauterine adhesion (IUA) reformation is high and different methods to prevent this subsequent to an operative hysteroscopy have been assessed. The use of antiadhesion gel, acting as a mechanical barrier, may decrease the occurrence of IUAs compared to no treatment or placebo. A heart-shaped intrauterine balloon is another example of a mechanical barrier. A small number of studies, of varying quality and with heterogeneous results, have been performed. A proper RCT, comparing the intrauterine balloon to no treatment or placebo, is needed.What the results of this study add? The heart-shaped intrauterine balloon as antiadhesion method is feasible in terms of surgeon's and patient's experience.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Designing a proper RCT is worth the effort.

Diagnostic criteria for retained products of conception-A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous studies have been performed assessing optimal treatment regimens for evacuating (retained) products of conception from the uterus, but standardized criteria for diagnosing retained products of conception (RPOC) are still lacking. We aim to provide an overview of diagnostic criteria in current literature, used to diagnose RPOC after induced first-trimester abortion or early pregnancy loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched systematically up until March 2020 for English articles reporting on induced abortion or early pregnancy loss. Articles not specifying diagnostic criteria used to assess completeness of treatment were excluded, as were conference abstracts, expert opinions, reviews, and case reports. Four elements of diagnostic criteria were described: diagnostic tools, parameters used within these tools, applied cut-off values, and timing of follow up. Additionally, a meta-analysis was performed assessing diagnostic qualities of the most often applied diagnostic tool and parameter. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 1233 unique articles, of which 248 were included, with a total of 339 517 participants. In the 79 included randomized controlled trials, six diagnostic tools to assess RPOC were identified, combined in 14 ways, with 55 different cut-off values. In 169 observational studies, seven diagnostic tools were identified, used in 28 combinations, applying 89 different cut-off values. Transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of endometrial thickness with a cut-off value of at least 15 mm indicating RPOC, was used most frequently. In the timing of follow-up there was great variation, with 55 and 107 different combinations in randomized controlled trials and observational studies, respectively. Assessment of treatment success was scheduled most often around 2 weeks after treatment. Diagnostic qualities of endometrial thickness of 15 mm or more was not adequately assessed. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the way RPOC are assessed, and the criteria used to define RPOC following induced abortion and early pregnancy loss; ultrasonographic measurement of endometrial thickness, with a cut-off of 15 mm or more 2 weeks after primary treatment is the most widely used diagnostic approach. A meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of endometrial thickness of 15 mm or more did not lead to solid results. These findings can be a first step to develop a workable standard of establishing RPOC after induced abortion or early pregnancy loss.

Reproductive and Obstetric Outcomes After Hysteroscopic Removal of Retained Products of Conception.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reproductive outcomes in women treated for retained products of conception (RPOC) by hysteroscopy (morcellation vs loop resection). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: A teaching and university hospital. PATIENTS: Patients included in a previous randomized controlled trial on hysteroscopic removal of RPOC comparing morcellation (n = 46) with loop resection (n = 40). INTERVENTIONS: Hysteroscopic morcellation versus loop resection. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome measures were live birth and pregnancy complications (including abnormal placentation [placenta accreta/increta/percreta], placenta previa, vasa previa, retained placenta after delivery or incomplete expulsion with the need for manual removal or curettage, and RPOC), uterine rupture, and other complications (blood loss, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of membranes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and intrauterine growth restriction). The live birth rate was 88.9% in the morcellation group and 68.2% in the loop resection group (p = .09). Uterine rupture occurred in 1 patient in the morcellation group (4.2%) (p = 1.00). Placental complications were found in 20.8% and 22.2% of the hysteroscopic morcellation and loop resection groups, respectively (p = .33), and other pregnancy complications were seen in 33.3% and 16.6% of the 2 groups (p = .33). The secondary outcome was time to pregnancy. The median time to pregnancy was 14 weeks (interquartile range [IQR], 5-33 weeks) in the morcellation group and 15 weeks (IQR, 6-37 weeks) in the loop resection group (p = .96). CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopic removal of RPOC seems to have no detrimental effect on reproductive outcome and no significant effect on pregnancy rate.

Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the inclusion criteria.1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison.2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low-quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Manually driven versus motor driven hysteroscopic tissue removal system for polypectomy: Long-term results.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this follow-up study is to compare a manually driven hysteroscopic tissue removal system (ResectrTM 9 Fr) with a motor driven system (TruclearTM) in terms of long-term clinical outcomes such as abnormal uterine bleeding and polyp recurrence. STUDY DESIGN: This is a follow-up of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing a manually and motor driven hysteroscopic tissue removal system for polypectomy. This prospective cohort study was performed at Ghent University Hospital (Ghent, Belgium) and Catharina Hospital Eindhoven (Eindhoven, the Netherlands). The trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Trial ID = NCT05337605, April 2022). Seventy-five women with abnormal uterine bleeding who participated in the randomized controlled trial and had pathological confirmation of the diagnosis of an endometrial polyp, were contacted. Fifty-five women (70.67 %) were willing to participate in this follow-up study. The primary outcome was the recurrence and/or persistence of abnormal uterine bleeding and the time to the recurrence of abnormal uterine bleeding. Secondary outcomes were polyp recurrence and time to polyp recurrence, symptom relief, satisfaction score regarding symptom relief and general satisfaction score regarding the surgical procedure. RESULTS: In the manually driven group, the mean time to the recurrence or persistence of abnormal uterine bleeding was 26 months (95 % CI 20 - 32). In the motor driven group, the mean time to the recurrence or persistence of abnormal uterine bleeding was 29 months (95 % CI 23- 34). A log-rank test showed a non-significant difference between both groups (P =.77). There was no significant difference in polyp recurrence (P =.22) or symptom relief between the two groups (P =.67). Additionally, the groups did not differ in satisfaction scores regarding symptoms or polypectomy (P =.16 and P =.61, respectively). CONCLUSION: This long-term follow-up study showed no statistically significant difference in the recurrence and persistence of abnormal uterine bleeding between a manually and motor driven hysteroscopic tissue removal system for polypectomy.

Operative hysteroscopy in the minimally invasive management of interstitial pregnancy and interstitially retained products of conception: A case report and systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: An interstitial pregnancy is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy. Diagnosis and management can be challenging. Treatment often involves invasive uterine surgery. Conservative options such as methotrexate are important alternatives nowadays. The aim of this review is to investigate the role of operative hysteroscopy in the organ and fertility preserving management of interstitial pregnancy and interstitially retained products of conception (RPOC). METHODS: A case is presented in which interstitially RPOC were removed using hysteroscopic morcellation under laparoscopic guidance. Consequently, a systematic literature review was performed.Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library were used as literature resources. RESULTS: In the literature review, 14 case reports in which operative hysteroscopy was part of the minimally invasive treatment of interstitial pregnancy and interstitially RPOC of which 11 were studied. Of these 14 cases, 11 were reported as being successful. Different techniques such as laparoscopy and suction curettage were associated. Various hysteroscopic instruments were used, hysteroscopic graspers most commonly. Reported complications were uterine perforation during suction curettage and incomplete hysteroscopic resection. Analysis of the cases did not demonstrate a clear difference between different approaches concerning safety, efficacy or subsequent fertility and pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSION: With the growing experience in hysteroscopy and the development of novel techniques and devices, such as hysteroscopic morcellation, operative hysteroscopy has a promising role in the minimally invasive management of interstitial pregnancy and interstitially RPOC. (Laparoscopically guided) operative hysteroscopy might be a convenient approach to avoid blind curettage and related complications such as uterine perforation.

Hysteroscopic morcellation versus bipolar resection for removal of type 0 and 1 submucous myomas: A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare hysteroscopic morcellation with bipolar resection for the removal of submucous type 0 and 1 myomas, in terms of procedure time (primary outcome), adverse events, tissue availability, short term effectiveness and postoperative adhesion formation (secondary outcomes). STUDY DESIGN: The study was performed from May 2011 to May 2018 in the Catharina hospital (Eindhoven, the Netherlands) and the Ghent University hospital (Ghent, Belgium). Women with type 0 and 1 submucous myomas up to 3 cm were randomized to hysteroscopic morcellation with the TruClearTM 8.0 Tissue Removal System or to bipolar resection with a rigid 8.5-mm resectoscope. Skewed time variables were log-transformed and analyzed with the Student t-test. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to assess the effect of myoma diameter on operating time. RESULTS: Forty-five and 38 women were included in the hysteroscopic morcellation and resection group, respectively. The median operating time was significantly shorter for hysteroscopic morcellation compared with resection (9.2 min [interquartile range 5.6-14.4] versus 13.4 min [interquartile range 8.6-17.5], P = .04). In the morcellation group, operating time, corrected for the myoma diameter, was reduced by 26 % (95 % CI 5-43%; P = .02). The median setup time was significantly longer in the morcellation group (5.2 min [interquartile range 4.2-6.9] versus 3.8 min [interquartile range 3.3-5.3], P = .006). The median total procedure time was not significantly different between the two techniques (14.4 min [interquartile range 11.4-19.2] versus 17.3 [interquartile range 12.7-23.8], P = .18). Two procedures of the morcellation group were converted to bipolar resection because of the myoma hardness. Complete resection was found in 89 % of the morcellation group and 95 % of the resection group. Adverse events occurred in 3 patients of the morcellation group, namely a fluid deficit > 2500 mL with the need of potassium suppletion, an asystolic vasovagal response after conversion to resection and postoperative fever requiring antibiotics. Tissue was available for pathology analysis in all cases. Routine second-look hysteroscopy performed in one center showed no intrauterine adhesions. CONCLUSION: Overall, there is no difference in total procedure time between hysteroscopic morcellation using the TruClearTM system compared to bipolar resection for the removal of smaller type 0 and 1 submucous myomas. Although hysteroscopic morcellation is faster, its setup time is longer. Calcified myomas can be challenging and fluid deficit remains a limiting factor.

Hysteroscopy in the Netherlands and Flanders: A survey amongst practicing gynaecologists.

OBJECTIVE: To gain insight in the current ideas on, and implementation of hysteroscopy amongst practicing gynaecologists in the Netherlands and Flanders. STUDY DESIGN: In August 2016 an electronic questionnaire was sent to practising gynaecologist members of the Dutch (N = 591) and Flemish (N = 586) Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. RESULTS: The response rate for the Netherlands was 15.4% (91/591), and for Flanders 27.0% (158/586). Responding gynaecologists have a preference for hysteroscopy for diagnosing and treating most intrauterine pathology. Flemish respondents are more hesitant in opting for hysteroscopy instead of curettage for treatment of polyps and placental remnants. There appears to be a wide diffusion of diagnostic and basic operative hysteroscopy. In contrast to Flanders, responding hysteroscopists from the Netherlands more often perform office hysteroscopic procedures. Hysteroscopic procedures, and office procedures in particular, are now educated during residency. Therefore, recently graduated gynaecologists have a preference for this technique. CONCLUSION: Our survey confirms that nowadays the focus of treating intrauterine pathology is on less invasive techniques and preserving the uterus. Dutch responding hysteroscopists have more expertise concerning office hysteroscopy than their Flemish colleagues. Future research on the cost-effectiveness of and optimisation of patient comfort during office hysteroscopy is needed to support its further implementation.

Primary intestinal type adenocarcinoma of the female genital tract, arisen from a tubulo-villous adenoma: Case report.

► An extremely rare neoplasm, especially in the absence of DES ► It's important to distinguish it from an adenocarcinoma from another location ► Little is known about the aetiology, several explanations have been postulated.