1
|
Bar-On S, Berkovitz Shperling R, Cohen A, Akdam A, Michaan N, Levin I, Rattan G, Tzur Y. Primary Resectoscopic Treatment of First-Trimester Miscarriage. JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY CANADA 2024; 46:102327. [PMID: 38042480 DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2023.102327] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2023] [Revised: 11/18/2023] [Accepted: 11/21/2023] [Indexed: 12/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To determine the feasibility and safety of resectoscopic treatment for uterine evacuation of first-trimester miscarriage. METHODS A single-centre prospective study performed between April 2021 and October 2021 at a university-affiliated tertiary medical centre. Patients diagnosed with early miscarriage of up to 12 weeks from the last menstrual period were eligible for participation. Recruited patients underwent hysteroscopic uterine evacuation under general anaesthesia by a Versapoint 2 bipolar resectoscope 24Fr (Johnson and Johnson, Germany). RESULTS A total of 15 patients were recruited for the study. The procedural characteristics as well as intra- and postoperative adverse events were recorded. The mean duration of the procedure was 14.3 ± 3.7 minutes. The achievement of complete evacuation was recorded in all cases, and no adverse events occurred during any procedure. Post-procedure follow-up 6 weeks after treatment was conducted by office hysteroscopy in 10 women and by ultrasonography in 4 women. One woman had conceived prior to her scheduled follow-up visit. In total, 2 (13.3%) cases of retained products of conception were diagnosed during office hysteroscopy and they were removed by the "see-and-treat" technique without anaesthesia. The diagnosis was confirmed pathologically. No intrauterine adhesions were detected and none of the women required a second hysteroscopy under anaesthesia due to retained products of conception. CONCLUSIONS Hysteroscopic evacuation of first-trimester miscarriage by a standard resectoscope is a safe and feasible technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shikma Bar-On
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lis Hospital for Women's Health, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Roza Berkovitz Shperling
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lis Hospital for Women's Health, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Aviad Cohen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lis Hospital for Women's Health, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Amir Akdam
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lis Hospital for Women's Health, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Nadav Michaan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lis Hospital for Women's Health, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Ishai Levin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lis Hospital for Women's Health, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Gilad Rattan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lis Hospital for Women's Health, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Yossi Tzur
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lis Hospital for Women's Health, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University), Tel Aviv, Israel.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Huchon C, Drioueche H, Koskas M, Agostini A, Bauville E, Bourdel N, Fernandez H, Fritel X, Graesslin O, Legendre G, Lucot JP, Panel P, Raiffort C, Giraudet G, Bussières L, Fauconnier A. Operative Hysteroscopy vs Vacuum Aspiration for Incomplete Spontaneous Abortion: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2023; 329:1197-1205. [PMID: 37039805 PMCID: PMC10091175 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.3415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2022] [Accepted: 02/22/2023] [Indexed: 04/12/2023]
Abstract
Importance Vacuum aspiration is commonly used to remove retained products of conception in patients with incomplete spontaneous abortion. Scarring of the uterine cavity may occur, potentially impairing future fertility. A procedural alternative, operative hysteroscopy, has gained popularity with a presumption of better future fertility. Objective To assess the superiority of hysteroscopy to vacuum aspiration for subsequent pregnancy in patients with incomplete spontaneous abortion who intend to have future pregnancy. Design, Setting, and Participants The HY-PER randomized, controlled, single-blind trial included 574 patients between November 6, 2014, and May 3, 2017, with a 2-year duration of follow-up. This multicenter trial recruited patients in 15 French hospitals. Individuals aged 18 to 44 years and planned for surgery for an incomplete spontaneous abortion with plans to subsequently conceive were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Interventions Surgical treatment by hysteroscopy (n = 288) or vacuum aspiration (n = 286). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a pregnancy of at least 22 weeks' duration during 2-year follow-up. Results The intention-to-treat analyses included 563 women (mean [SD] age, 32.6 [5.4] years). All aspiration procedures were completed. The hysteroscopic procedure could not be completed for 19 patients (7%), 18 of which were converted to vacuum aspiration (8 with inability to completely resect, 7 with insufficient visualization, 2 with anesthetic complications that required a shortened procedure, 1 with equipment failure). One hysteroscopy failed due to a false passage during cervical dilatation. During the 2-year follow-up, 177 patients (62.8%) in the hysteroscopy group and 190 (67.6%) in the vacuum aspiration (control) group achieved the primary outcome (difference, -4.8% [95% CI, -13% to 3.0%]; P = .23). The time-to-event analyses showed no statistically significant difference between groups for the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.07]). Duration of surgery and hospitalization were significantly longer for hysteroscopy. Rates of new miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, Clavien-Dindo surgical complications of grade 3 or above (requiring surgical, endoscopic, or radiological intervention or life-threatening event or death), and reinterventions to remove remaining products of conception did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance Surgical management by hysteroscopy of incomplete spontaneous abortions in patients intending to conceive again was not associated with more subsequent births or a better safety profile than vacuum aspiration. Moreover, operative hysteroscopy was not feasible in all cases. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02201732.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cyrille Huchon
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, APHP, Hopital Lariboisière, University of Paris Cité, Paris, France
- Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Unité de Recherche 7285, Risques Cliniques et Sécurité en Santé des Femmes et en Santé Périnatale (RISCQ), Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, CHI Poissy-St-Germain, Poissy CEDEX, France
| | - Hocine Drioueche
- Department of Clinical Research, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy-Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Poissy, France
| | - Martin Koskas
- Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Unité de Recherche 7285, Risques Cliniques et Sécurité en Santé des Femmes et en Santé Périnatale (RISCQ), Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, APHP, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, France
| | - Aubert Agostini
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hôpital La Conception, Marseille CEDEX 5, France
| | - Estelle Bauville
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes CEDEX 2, France
| | - Nicolas Bourdel
- Department of Gynecologic Surgery, CHU Estaing Clermont Ferrand, 63058 Clermont Ferrand CEDEX 1, Faculty of Medicine, ISIT – Université d’Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Hervé Fernandez
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, AP-HP, Hôpital Bicêtre, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, 94270, France
- Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health-INSERM U1018, Université Paris Sud, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France
| | - Xavier Fritel
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, CHU de Poitiers, Université de Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et Pharmacie, Inserm CIC1402, Poitiers, France
| | - Olivier Graesslin
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hôpital Alix de Champagne, CHU de Reims, Reims, France
| | - Guillaume Legendre
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, CHU d’Angers, Angers CEDEX 01, France
| | - Jean-Philippe Lucot
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hôpital Jeanne-de-Flandre, CHRU de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Pierre Panel
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Centre Hospitalier de Versailles, Le Chesnay, France
| | - Cyril Raiffort
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, APHP, Hôpital Louis Mourier, Département Hospitalier Universitaire Risque et Grossesse, Colombes, University of Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Géraldine Giraudet
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hôpital Jeanne-de-Flandre, CHRU de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Laurence Bussières
- Clinical Unit Research/Clinic Investigation Center, Paris Descartes, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Arnaud Fauconnier
- Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Unité de Recherche 7285, Risques Cliniques et Sécurité en Santé des Femmes et en Santé Périnatale (RISCQ), Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, CHI Poissy-St-Germain, Poissy CEDEX, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ghosh J, Papadopoulou A, Devall AJ, Jeffery HC, Beeson LE, Do V, Price MJ, Tobias A, Tunçalp Ö, Lavelanet A, Gülmezoglu AM, Coomarasamy A, Gallos ID. Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 6:CD012602. [PMID: 34061352 PMCID: PMC8168449 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012602.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option. OBJECTIVES To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods. MAIN RESULTS Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jay Ghosh
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Argyro Papadopoulou
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Adam J Devall
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Hannah C Jeffery
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Leanne E Beeson
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Vivian Do
- University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Malcolm J Price
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Aurelio Tobias
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Özge Tunçalp
- UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Antonella Lavelanet
- UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | - Arri Coomarasamy
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ioannis D Gallos
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Smith PP, Dhillon-Smith RK, O'Toole E, Cooper N, Coomarasamy A, Clark TJ. Outcomes in prevention and management of miscarriage trials: a systematic review. BJOG 2019; 126:176-189. [PMID: 30461160 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15528] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/20/2018] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a substantial body of research evaluating ways to prevent and manage miscarriage, but all studies do not report on the same outcomes. OBJECTIVE To review systematically, outcomes reported in existing miscarriage trials. SEARCH STRATEGY MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until January 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting prevention or management of miscarriage. Miscarriage was defined as a pregnancy loss in the first trimester. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data about the study characteristics, primary, and secondary outcomes were extracted. MAIN RESULTS We retrieved 1553 titles and abstracts, from which 208 RCTs were included. For prevention of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was live birth and the top four reported outcomes were pregnancy loss/stillbirth (n = 112), gestation of birth (n = 68), birth dimensions (n = 65), and live birth (n = 49). For these four outcomes, 58 specific measures were used for evaluation. For management of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was efficacy of treatment. The top four reported outcomes were bleeding (n = 186), efficacy of miscarriage treatment (n = 105), infection (n = 97), and quality of life (n = 90). For these outcomes, 130 specific measures were used for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS Our review found considerable variation in the reporting of primary and secondary outcomes along with the measures used to assess them. There is a need for standardised patient-centred clinical outcomes through the development of a core outcome set; the work from this systematic review will form the foundation of the core outcome set for miscarriage. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT There is disparity in the reporting of outcomes and the measures used to assess them in miscarriage trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P P Smith
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - R K Dhillon-Smith
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - E O'Toole
- Women's Voices Involvement Panel, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK
| | - Nam Cooper
- Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University, London, UK
| | - A Coomarasamy
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - T J Clark
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Capmas P, Lobersztajn A, Duminil L, Barral T, Pourcelot AG, Fernandez H. Operative hysteroscopy for retained products of conception: Efficacy and subsequent fertility. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2018; 48:151-154. [PMID: 30553048 DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2018] [Revised: 12/11/2018] [Accepted: 12/12/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
Retained product of conception complicates nearly 1% of pregnancies and can lead to synechiae and compromise ulterior fertility. The aim of this study is to evaluate efficiency of operative hysteroscopy in management of retained products of conception (RPOC). Secondary objectives are assessments of intra-uterine adhesions rate and later fertility. This unicentric retrospective study includes women who undertook an operative hysteroscopy for retained products of conception between January 2012 and March 2014. Assessment of the efficiency of operative hysteroscopy is defined by a complete resection of retained products of conception confirmed by office hysteroscopy. One hundred fourteen women were included in the study. Efficiency of operative hysteroscopy for retained products of conception is 91% for women with a postoperative office hysteroscopy. The authors observed a 7.5% rate of postoperative intra-uterine adhesions. Fertility rate was 83% (30 women out of 36 with a desired pregnancy). Hysteroscopic resection of retained products of conception is an efficient procedure and seems to be a real alternative.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Perrine Capmas
- AP-HP, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France; INSERM, U1018, Centre of research in Epidemiology and population health (CESP), F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.
| | - Anina Lobersztajn
- AP-HP, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France
| | - Laura Duminil
- AP-HP, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France
| | - Tiphaine Barral
- AP-HP, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France
| | - Anne-Gaëlle Pourcelot
- AP-HP, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France; Faculty of medicine, University Paris Saclay, F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France
| | - Hervé Fernandez
- AP-HP, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France; INSERM, U1018, Centre of research in Epidemiology and population health (CESP), F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France; Faculty of medicine, University Paris Saclay, F-94276, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Brossat H, Frigo S, Langer B. [Successful expectant management of a uterine arteriovenous malformation]. GYNECOLOGIE, OBSTETRIQUE & FERTILITE 2015; 43:815-817. [PMID: 26584891 DOI: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2015.10.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2015] [Accepted: 10/14/2015] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- H Brossat
- Département de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital de Hautepierre, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 67100 Strasbourg, France.
| | - S Frigo
- Département de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital de Hautepierre, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 67100 Strasbourg, France
| | - B Langer
- Département de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital de Hautepierre, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 67100 Strasbourg, France
| |
Collapse
|