A Prospective Randomized Comparative Clinical trial of Hysteroscopic Septal Resection Using Conventional Resectoscope Versus Mini-resectoscope.

Abstract

Context:Hysteroscopic metroplasty (HM) is the gold standard treatment for women with septate uterus with recurrent pregnancy loss. Miniresectoscope requires less cervical dilatation as compared to conventional resectoscope. Very few studies are available in the literature on use of miniresectoscope for operative purpose.Aim of the Study:This study aimed to compare operative and postoperative outcome parameters using conventional versus mini resectoscope (MR) for hysteroscopic septal resection (HSR).Study Settings and Design:This was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology from July 2017 to May 2019.Materials and Methods:Forty patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were recruited and randomized into two groups. In Group A (20 patients), HSR was done using conventional resectoscope (CR) and in Group B (20 patients), MR was used. The various parameters recorded were cervical dilatation time, operating time, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, and hospital stay and reproductive outcome post surgery in both groups.Results:Data analysis was carried out using SPSS IBM software version 20.0. The mean operating time was comparable but cervical dilatation time was significantly more in Group A. The duration of hospital stay was significantly less in Group B. There were no differences in adequacy of vision in both the groups but area of field was less in MR group. Four out of nine patients with infertility conceived after surgery. 65% in Group A and 70% in Group B conceived during follow up.Conclusion:Our study showed that hysteroscopic metroplasty with MR, has comparable efficacy to CR in terms of good vision and septal resectability with added advantages of shorter cervical dilatation time, ease of entry of resectoscope, shorter operative time and significantly reduced postoperative morbidity in terms of less pain. However, the field of vision is less and resection time is more, hence more expertise is required. Further larger randomized trials are required.