Facts, Views & Vision
in ObGyn

Journal of the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy

esge_logo

Endometrial polypectomy using tissue removal device or electrosurgical snare: a randomised controlled trial

J. van Gemert1, M.C. Herman1, P. Beelen2, P.M Geomini1, M.Y. Bongers1,3

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Máxima MC, De run 4600, 5504 DB Veldhoven, the Netherlands
2 Department of General Practice, University of Maastricht, P. Debyeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands
3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Keywords:

endometrial polyps, endometrial polypectomy, outpatient care, electrosurgical polyp snare, tissue removal device


Published online: Sep 30 2022

https://doi.org/10.52054/FVVO.14.3.035

Abstract

Background: Hysteroscopic transcervical resection of endometrial polyps is a widely used method and is increasingly performed in office or outpatient care. To ensure patient comfort is key, smaller instruments are preferred while also achieving a complete resection of the pathology.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of the electrosurgical polyp snare (DPS) in comparison with a tissue removal device (TRD).

Materials and Methods: This was a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial which included 66 women with symptomatic endometrial polyps who had been referred to the gynaecological outpatient clinic at the Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, the Netherlands. The patients were randomly allocated by using sealed envelopes to treatment with either the DPS (Duckbill®, Cook) or the TRD (Truclear™, Medtronic). Clinicians and patients were not blinded to the treatment performed. An independent observer blindly assessed the results.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the complete removal of the endometrial polyp. Secondary outcomes were woman acceptability and pain during the procedure, operating time, peri-operative and immediate postoperative complications.

Results: 57% of the polyps in the DPS group and 95% in the TRD group were completely removed (risk difference -0.39; 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.15). Average operating time was longer with DPS compared to the TRD (11.7 min. vs. 6.8 min., p = 0.018). The number of insertions of the hysteroscope was higher with the DPS compared to the TRD (3.9 vs. 1.7, p <0.001). One serious adverse event, a uterine perforation, occurred in the DPS group.

Conclusion: The TRD was superior to the DPS in completeness of polyp removal.

What is new? TRD has a higher rate of complete polyp resection, overall safety and higher patient satisfaction, this instrument should be considered as the preferred option in outpatient and office gynaecology.