Hysteroscopic Endometrial Polypectomy: Clinical and Economic Data in Decision Making

Guideline No. 447: Diagnosis and Management of Endometrial Polyps

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide gynaecologists with an algorithm and evidence to guide the diagnosis and management of endometrial polyps.

TARGET POPULATION

All patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic endometrial polyps.

OPTIONS

Options for management of endometrial polyps include expectant, medical, and surgical management. These will depend on symptoms, risks for malignancy, and patient choice.

OUTCOMES

Outcomes include resolution of symptoms, histopathological diagnosis, and complete removal of the polyp.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

The implementation of this guideline aims to benefit patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic endometrial polyps and provide physicians with an evidence-based approach toward diagnosis and management (including expectant, medical, and surgical management) of polyps.

EVIDENCE

The following search terms were entered into PubMed/Medline and Cochrane: endometrial polyps, polyps, endometrial thickening, abnormal uterine bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, endometrial hyperplasia, endometrial cancer, hormonal therapy, female infertility. All articles were included in the literature search up to 2021 and the following study types were included: randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, observational studies, and case reports. Additional publications were identified from the bibliographies of these articles. Only English-language articles were reviewed.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Gynaecologists, family physicians, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, medical students, and residents and fellows.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Uterine polyps are common and can cause abnormal bleeding, infertility, or bleeding after menopause. If patients don't experience symptoms, treatment is often not necessary. Polyps can be treated with medication but often a surgery will be necessary.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Outpatient Hysteroscopic Polypectomy-A Retrospective Study Comparing Rigid and Semirigid Office Hysteroscopes

Endometrial polyps are one of the most common pathological conditions in gynecology. Hysteroscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis and treatment of endometrial polyps. The purpose of this multicenter, retrospective study was to compare patients' pain perception during an operative hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy in an outpatient setting with two different hysteroscopes (rigid and semirigid) and to identify some clinical and intraoperative characteristics that are related to worsening pain during the procedure. We included women that underwent, at the same time as an diagnostic hysteroscopy, the complete removal of an endometrial polyp (using the see-and-treat strategy) without any kind of analgesia. A total of 166 patients were enrolled, of which 102 patients underwent a polypectomy with a semirigid hysteroscope and 64 patients underwent the procedure with a rigid hysteroscope. No differences were found during the diagnostic step; on the contrary, after the operative procedure, a statistically significant greater degree of pain was reported when the semirigid hysteroscope was used. Cervical stenosis and menopausal status were risk factors for pain both in the diagnostic step and in the operative one. Our results confirm that operative hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy in an outpatient setting is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated procedure and indicate that it might be better tolerated if a rigid rather than semirigid instrument is used.

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

Background

In recent years, the available evidence revealed that mechanical hysteroscopic tissue removal (mHTR) systems represent a safe and effective alternative to conventional operative resectoscopic hysteroscopy to treat a diverse spectrum of intrauterine pathology including endometrial polyps, uterine myomas, removal of placental remnants and to perform targeted endometrial biopsy under direct visualisation. This innovative technology simultaneously cuts and removes the tissue, allowing one to perform the procedure in a safer, faster and more effective way compared to conventional resectoscopic surgery.

Objective

To review currently available scientific evidence concerning the use of mechanical hysteroscopic morcellators and highlight relevant aspects of the technology.

Material and Methods

A narrative review was conducted analysing the available literature regarding hysteroscopic tissue removal systems.

Main outcome measures

Characteristics of available mHTR systems, procedures they are used for, their performance including safety aspects and their comparison.

Results

A total of 7 hysteroscopic morcellators were identified. The diameter of the external sheet ranged from 5.25 to 9.0 mm, optics ranged from 0.8 to 6.3 mm with 0o angle. The cutter device diameter ranged from 2.9 to 4.5 mm most of them with rotation and reciprocation.

Conclusion

We conclude that the adoption of mHTR has shown to reduce operating time, simultaneously cutting and suctioning tissue fragments avoiding the need for multiple removal and reinsertions of the device into the uterine cavity as well as reducing the volume of distension media required to complete the procedure compared to using the hysteroscopic resectoscope.

Removal of uterine polyps: clinical management and surgical approach

Endometrial polyps have a reported prevalence from 7.8% up to 30% and are one of the most cost-consuming gynecological conditions for our specialty. There are strong practitioner beliefs that surgical removal of endometrial polyps is highly beneficial, particularly for those with abnormal uterine bleeding and infertility. Additionally, polypectomy is indicated to reduce the risk of malignancy. Transvaginal ultrasound is the first-line diagnostic option for detection of endometrial polyps, while sonohysterography has similar accuracy as hysteroscopy in the diagnostic confirmation. Blind dilatation and curettage is not recommended for polyp removal; rather, hysteroscopy in the operating room and office setting using small-diameter hysteroscopic equipment is the standard approach. This can be performed without anesthesia in most women. While hysteroscopy is an effective method for polypectomy with a low complication rate, it is unknown whether this is truly beneficial for reproductive-age women with infertility and prior assisted reproduction therapy. The risk of malignancy in women with postmenopausal bleeding justifies the necessity of polypectomy with histologic tissue examination. In asymptomatic women, the risk of malignancy is low, and there are no known benefits of polyp removal in the prevention of malignant transformation. Cost-effective studies remain to be done to provide us with the optimal approach to endometrial polyps including the management of asymptomatic and/or infertile women, ideal location including office-based or the operating room setting, complication prevention including intrauterine adhesions, and recurrence issues.

Hysteroscopic endometrial peeling as a different approach to endometrial scratching. Case series report

STUDY QUESTION

Does hysteroscopic endometrial peeling improve reproductive outcomes in women with implantation failure?

DESIGN

In this case series, 66 women underwent an hysteroscopic endometrial peeling and subsequently, a single frozen embryo transfer.

RESULTS

After the exclusion of patients with intraoperative incidental findings, pregnancy was achieved in 63% (42/66) of the women who underwent hysteroscopic endometrial peeling and subsequently a single frozen embryo transfer, clinical pregnancy rate was observed in 57% (38/66) of the patients and, clinical pregnancy loss occurred in 10% (4/38).

CONCLUSION

this novel surgical technique seems to increase implantation as well as clinical pregnancy rates in women with repeated implantation failure. We can hypothesize that the controlled and subtle degree of endometrial injury generated by the peeling generates an inflammatory cascade that enhances implantation.

Four year evaluation of therapeutic hysteroscopy under procedural sedation in an outpatient clinic

OBJECTIVE

Due to the evolution of hysteroscopic instruments, therapeutic hysteroscopic procedures are increasingly performed in an outpatient, office-based setting. The most important limiting factor of performing these hysteroscopic treatments is patient discomfort. Procedural Sedation Analgesia (PSA) decreases patient discomfort and anxiety. The main goal of this study is to determine safety, feasibility and patient satisfaction of therapeutic hysteroscopy performed under procedural sedation in an outpatient clinic. Our second objective was to compare 9 mm scopes with smaller diameter scopes.

STUDY DESIGN

All consecutive patients suitable for procedural sedation and scheduled for a therapeutic hysteroscopy in the outpatient clinic were prospectively included from February 2014 to November 2018 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands. A variety of therapeutic hysteroscopies procedures was performed including myomectomy, removal of retained products of conception and endometrial ablation. Therapeutic hysteroscopes with 3.8 mm, 5 mm and 9 mm diameter were used. In all selected women procedure time, admission time, pain scores, anaesthesiologic and procedural complications were assessed. All women received a questionnaire on patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

In total 455 patients underwent a therapeutic hysteroscopy. Median procedure time was 11 min (2-63 min) and median admission time was 130 min (30-480 min). Median pain score according to the visual analog scale (VAS) before, during and after procedure were respectively 0 (0-10), 0 (0-4) and 0 (0-9). Anaesthesiologic complication rate was 4.4 %, all minor. Procedural complications consisted of infection postoperatively (0.4 %), excessive blood loss during procedure (0.6 %) and perforation (0.4 %). Procedure was incomplete in 3.3 % of all procedures. Patient satisfaction was high, as 96 % of the women were satisfied. No differences were found in pain scores, VAS 0 versus 1 after the procedure, between 3.8 or 5 mm and 9 mm scopes.

CONCLUSION

It is safe and feasible to perform a therapeutic hysteroscopy under procedural sedation in an outpatient setting, with low pain scores and a high degree of patient satisfaction, also when large diameter instruments are used.

Office hysteroscopy in the management of women with postmenopausal bleeding

Postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) is a relevant aspect for health-care providers in clinical practice: the first objective is to rule out potential gynecological cancer. The purpose of this narrative review is to evaluate the role of office hysteroscopy in the management of PMB. Office hysteroscopy is a minimally invasive procedure allowing direct visualization of uterine pathology without the need for general anesthesia and the use of an operating room, generating cost savings and greater compliance among patients. Here, we focus on major intrauterine diseases (polyps, submucosal myomas, endometrial hyperplasia, and cancer) as causes of PMB. Office hysteroscopy appears to be safe and feasible, and could allow accurate diagnosis of intrauterine pathologies, especially that with a focal growth pattern, otherwise misdiagnosed with blinded procedures. However, studies focusing exclusively on postmenopausal women are still few, so further research, especially randomized controlled trials, is needed.

Innovations in hysteroscopic surgery: expanding the meaning of "in-office"

Surgical innovations in hysteroscopic surgery have radically changed the way of treating intrauterine pathologies, throughout the advent of the 'see-and-treat' philosophy, which transferred the advantages of inpatient surgery to the office setting. However, in-office operative hysteroscopy was mainly limited to minor pathology as a supplement to its diagnosis, whereas commonly larger abnormalities were left to be treated in the operating room. Nowadays, pre-surgical assessment of uterine pathology is based on modern ultrasound evaluation and the evolving role of in-office hysteroscopy as a well-planned treatment modality for larger lesions and more complex procedures. Office operative hysteroscopy has been accepted as a feasible, cost-effective, practical way to treat almost any intrauterine disease. Despite the growing role of other imaging tools in the proper evaluation of benign uterine diseases, especially extended beyond to direct hysteroscopic visualization, diagnostic hysteroscopy remains a valuable tool of direct endometrial sampling and may be used as the first line in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and hyperplasia. Our aim is to describe the most recent innovations and future perspectives in the field of outpatient operative hysteroscopy: mini-resectoscopes, intrauterine morcellators, tissue retrieval systems, diode laser, new miniaturized mechanical instruments, endometrial ablation devices and portable and entry-level hysteroscopes.

Effectiveness of Hysteroscopic Techniques for Endometrial Polyp Removal: The Italian Multicenter Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of different techniques of hysteroscopic polypectomy.

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective observational trial (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Nineteen Italian gynecologic departments (university-affiliated or public hospitals).

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients suffering from endometrial polyps (EPs).

INTERVENTIONS

Hysteroscopic polypectomy, as performed through different techniques.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Included in the study were 1404 patients (with 1825 EPs). The setting was an ambulatory care unit in 40.38% of the cases (567 women), of whom 97.7% (554) did not require analgesia/anesthesia. In the remaining 59.62% of women (837 women), the procedures were performed in an operating room under mild sedation, local or general anesthesia. Minor complications occurred in 32 patients (2.27%), without significant differences between the techniques used (p = ns). Uterine perforation occurred in 14 cases, all performed in the operating room with some kind of anesthesia, only 1 with a vaginoscopic technique and the remaining during blind dilatation (odds ratio [OR], 19.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-335.79; p = .04). An incomplete removal of EPs was documented in 39 patients. Logistic regression analysis showed that a higher risk of residual EPs was associated with the use of a fiber-based 3.5-mm hysteroscope (OR, 6.78; 95% CI, 2.97-15.52; p <.001), the outpatient setting (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.14-4.14; p = .019), and EPs located at the tubal corner (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-2.79; p = .039). No association between incomplete EP removal and EP size or number was recorded (p = ns), as well as with the other variables evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient polypectomy was associated with a minimal but significantly higher risk of residual EPs in comparison with inpatient polypectomy. Conversely, inpatient polypectomy was associated with a considerably higher risk of uterine perforation and penetration in comparison with office hysteroscopy. Because of lower intraoperative risks and higher cost-effectiveness, office hysteroscopy may be considered, whenever possible, as the gold standard technique for removing EPs.