Cold scissors versus electrosurgery for hysteroscopic adhesiolysis : A meta-analysis

Abstract

Background:

Intrauterine adhesion seriously affects reproductive health in women. Hysteroscopic adhesiolysis using cold scissors or electrosurgery is the main treatment, although there is no consensus on the preferable method. This review aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these methods for treating moderate to severe intrauterine adhesion.

Methods:

PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched on April 30, 2020. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies that were published in all languages (must contain English abstracts) and compared hysteroscopic cold scissors with electrosurgery for the treatment of intrauterine adhesion were included. Mean differences, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Data were analyzed using RevMan software (Review Manager version 5.3, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. If a consensus was not reached, a third researcher was consulted.

Results:

Nine studies (n = 761; 6 randomized controlled trials and 3 retrospective studies) were included. The intrauterine adhesion recurrence rate with second look hysteroscopy was significantly lower (odds ratio = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.16–0.56; P = .0002) with hysteroscopic cold scissors than with electrosurgery. The total operation time was significantly shorter (mean difference = –7.78, 95% confidence interval = –8.50 to –7.07; P < .00001), intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower (mean difference = –9.88, 95% CI = –11.25 to –8.51; P < .00001), and the menstrual flow rate was significantly higher (odds ratio = 4.36, 95% confidence interval = 2.56–7.43; P < .00001) with hysteroscopic cold scissors than with electrosurgery. There were no significant differences in the pregnancy rate. One complication (1 perforation case, hysteroscopic cold scissors group) was reported.

Conclusions:

Hysteroscopic cold scissors is more efficient in preventing intrauterine adhesion recurrence, increasing the menstrual flow, reducing intraoperative blood loss, and shortening the operation time.