Predictors for Using Electricity During Hysteroscopic Removal of Retained Products of Conception
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study Population
2.2. Surgical Technique
2.3. Data Collection
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rottenstreich, M.; Atia, O.; Greifner, N.; Rotem, R.; Grisaru-Granovsky, S.; Vernea, F.; Reichman, O.; Sela, H.Y. Prospective evaluation of clinical characteristics and maternal outcomes of women with pathologically confirmed postpartum retained placental fragments. J. Matern. Neonatal Med. 2022, 35, 7322–7329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Trinder, J.; Brocklehurst, P.; Porter, R.; Read, M.; Vyas, S.; Smith, L. Management of miscarriage: Expectant, medical, or surgical? Results of randomised controlled trial (miscarriage treatment (MIST) trial). Br. Med. J. 2006, 332, 1235–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Greenbaum, S.; Wainstock, T.; Dukler, D.; Leron, E.; Erez, O. Underlying mechanisms of retained placenta: Evidence from a population based cohort study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2017, 216, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Endler, M.; Saltvedt, S.; Papadogiannakis, N. Macroscopic and histological characteristics of retained placenta: A prospectively collected case-control study. Placenta 2016, 41, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hooker, A.B.; Aydin, H.; Brölmann, H.A.M.; Huirne, J.A.F. Long-term complications and reproductive outcome after the management of retained products of conception: A systematic review. Fertil. Steril. 2016, 105, 156–164.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smorgick, N.; Barel, O.; Fuchs, N.; Ben-Ami, I.; Pansky, M.; Vaknin, Z. Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: Meta-analysis and literature review. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2014, 173, 19–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yu, D.; Wong, Y.M.; Cheong, Y.; Xia, E.; Li, T.C. Asherman syndrome-one century later. Fertil. Steril. 2008, 89, 759–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takahashi, H.; Ohhashi, M.; Baba, Y.; Nagayama, S.; Ogoyama, M.; Horie, K.; Suzuki, H.; Usui, R.; Ohkuchi, A.; Matsubara, S. Conservative management of retained products of conception in the normal placental position: A retrospective observational study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2019, 240, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulte, R.L.; Fox, R.; Anderson, J.; Young, N.; Davis, L.; Saxton, V.; Mooney, S.S. Medical management of retained products of conception: A prospective observational study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2023, 285, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wagenaar, L.P.; Hamerlynck, T.W.; Radder, C.M.; Peters, L.W.; Weyers, S.; Schoot, B.C.; van Vliet, H.A. Hysteroscopic morcellation vs. curettage for removal of retained products of conception: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Fertil. Steril. 2023, 120, 1243–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ben-Ami, I.; Melcer, Y.; Smorgick, N.; Schneider, D.; Pansky, M.; Halperin, R. A comparison of reproductive outcomes following hysteroscopic management versus dilatation and curettage of retained products of conception. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2014, 127, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Munro, M.G.; Christianson, L.A. Complications of hysteroscopic and uterine resectoscopic surgery. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015, 58, 765–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Golan, A.; Dishi, M.; Shalev, A.; Keidar, R.; Ginath, S.; Sagiv, R. Operative Hysteroscopy to Remove Retained Products of Conception: Novel Treatment of an Old Problem. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2011, 18, 100–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vitale, S.G.; Parry, J.P.; Carugno, J.; Cholkeri-Singh, A.; Della Corte, L.; Cianci, S.; Schiattarella, A.; Riemma, G.; De Franciscis, P. Surgical and Reproductive Outcomes after Hysteroscopic Removal of Retained Products of Conception: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2021, 28, 204–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rein, D.T.; Schmidt, T.; Hess, A.P.; Volkmer, A.; Schöndorf, T.; Breidenbach, M. Hysteroscopic Management of Residual Trophoblastic Tissue Is Superior to Ultrasound-Guided Curettage. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2011, 18, 774–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anteby, M.; Many, A.; Ashwal, E.; Yogev, Y.; Shinar, S. Risk factors and complications of manual placental removal after vaginal delivery—How common are additional invasive procedures? J. Matern. Neonatal. Med. 2019, 32, 384–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smorgick, N.; Ayashi, N.; Levinsohn-Tavor, O.; Wiener, Y.; Betser, M.; Maymon, R. Postpartum retained products of conception: Retrospective analysis of the association with third stage of labor placental complications. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2019, 234, 108–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cohen, A.; Cohen, Y.; Sualhi, S.; Rayman, S.; Azem, F.; Rattan, G. Office hysteroscopy for removal of retained products of conception: Can we predict treatment outcome? Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 44, 683–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohr-Sasson, A.; Gur, T.; Meyer, R.; Mashiach, R.; Stockheim, D. Office Operative Hysteroscopy for the Management of Retained Products of Conception. Reprod. Sci. 2022, 29, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Incognito, G.G.; Maček, K.J.; Blaganje, M.; Starič, K.D.; Ettore, G.; Ettore, C.; Podgornik, M.L.; Verdenik, I.; Šuster, N.K. Effectiveness of office hysteroscopy for retained products of conception: Insights from 468 cases. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2025, 312, 791–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
| Electric Removal (n = 84) | No Electric Removal (n = 467) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients’ age (years) | 33.2 ± 6.4 | 31.2 ± 5.8 | 0.004 |
| Past abdominal surgeries | 21 (25.0) | 79 (16.9) | 0.078 |
| Smoking | 13 (15.4) | 38 (8.1) | 0.033 |
| Gravidity | 2 [1–20] | 2 [1–12] | 0.904 |
| Parity | 2 [0–5] | 1 [0–7] | 0.574 |
| Nulliparity | 15 (17.8) | 82 (17.5) | 1.0 |
| Prior hysteroscopy | 5 (5.9) | 5 (1.0) | 0.002 |
| Prior D&C | 21 (25.0) | 70 (14.9) | 0.407 |
| Electric Removal (n = 84) | No Electric Removal (n = 467) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RPOC following NVD | 48 (57.1) | 116 (24.8) | <0.001 |
| RPOC following CS | 5 (5.9) | 19 (4.0) | 0.439 |
| RPOC following medical treatment for MA | 10 (11.9) | 88 (18.8) | 0.124 |
| RPOC following D&C for MA | 8 (9.5) | 60 (12.8) | 0.390 |
| RPOC following medical treatment for AA | 4 (4.7) | 24 (5.1) | 0.882 |
| RPOC following D&C for AA | 9 (10.7) | 28 (5.9) | 0.113 |
| Manual removal of the placenta | 27 (32.1) | 44 (9.4) | <0.001 |
| Symptoms and preoperative assessment | |||
| Irregular bleeding | 41 (48.8) | 187 (40.0) | 0.260 |
| Abdominal pain | 4 (4.7) | 9 (1.9) | 0.116 |
| Infection | 4 (4.7) | 4 (0.8) | 0.466 |
| Baseline hemoglobin | 12.2 ± 1.3 | 12.3 ± 1.2 | 0.655 |
| Diagnosed postpartum hemorrhage | 5 (5.9) | 19 (4.0) | 0.439 |
| Largest RPOC diameter on ultrasound (mm) | 19.8 ± 10.9 | 16.8 ± 7.3 | 0.003 |
| Presence of blood flow by US-doppler | 40 (47.6) | 121 (25.9) | 0.037 |
| Electric Removal (n = 84) | No Electric Removal (n = 467) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RPOC location–anterior wall | 39 (46.4) | 73 (15.6) | 0.017 |
| RPOC location–posterior wall | 18 (21.4) | 101 (21.6) | 0.065 |
| RPOC location–uterine fundus | 15 (17.8) | 73 (15.6) | 0.315 |
| RPOC location–uterine horn | 6 (7.1) | 37 (7.9) | 0.236 |
| Duration of hysteroscopy (minutes) | 19.5 ± 11.0 | 12.6 ± 5.3 | 0.192 |
| Estimated blood loss | 28.4 ± 39.9 | 12.3 ± 18.7 | <0.001 |
| Intraoperative complications | 2 (2.3) | 2 (0.4) | 0.053 |
| OR | 95% Confidence Interval | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1.06 | 1.01–1.11 | 0.007 |
| Smoking | 1.29 | 0.58–2.87 | 0.531 |
| Nulliparity | 1.59 | 0.75–3.37 | 0.223 |
| Prior hysteroscopy | 2.65 | 0.64–10.97 | 0.177 |
| RPOC following delivery (compared to abortion) | 2.22 | 1.13–4.35 | 0.020 |
| Manualysis | 2.20 | 1.00–4.82 | 0.048 |
| Largest RPOC diameter on ultrasound (mm) | 1.02 | 0.99–1.06 | 0.144 |
| Presence of blood flow by US-Doppler | 1.73 | 1.02–3.00 | 0.049 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mor, L.; Leibowitz, T.; Ben-Ezry, E.; Kerner, R.; Keidar, R.; Weiner, E.; Sagiv, R.; Gluck, O. Predictors for Using Electricity During Hysteroscopic Removal of Retained Products of Conception. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 7587. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217587
Mor L, Leibowitz T, Ben-Ezry E, Kerner R, Keidar R, Weiner E, Sagiv R, Gluck O. Predictors for Using Electricity During Hysteroscopic Removal of Retained Products of Conception. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(21):7587. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217587
Chicago/Turabian StyleMor, Liat, Tzvi Leibowitz, Emilie Ben-Ezry, Ram Kerner, Ran Keidar, Eran Weiner, Ron Sagiv, and Ohad Gluck. 2025. "Predictors for Using Electricity During Hysteroscopic Removal of Retained Products of Conception" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 21: 7587. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217587
APA StyleMor, L., Leibowitz, T., Ben-Ezry, E., Kerner, R., Keidar, R., Weiner, E., Sagiv, R., & Gluck, O. (2025). Predictors for Using Electricity During Hysteroscopic Removal of Retained Products of Conception. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(21), 7587. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217587

