Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intrauterine Morcellator Devices: The Icon of Hysteroscopic Future or Merely a Marketing Image? A Systematic Review Regarding Safety, Efficacy, Advantages, and Contraindications

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze all available evidence regarding the use of intrauterine morcellator (IUM), for treatment of the most prevalent intrauterine benign lesions, compared to both traditional resectoscopy and conventional outpatient operative hysteroscopy in terms of safety, efficacy, contraindications, perioperative complications, operating time, and estimated learning curve. We reported data regarding a total of 1185 patients. Concerning polypectomy and myomectomy procedures, IUM systems demonstrated a better outcome in terms of operative time and fluid deficit compared to standard surgical procedures. Complication rates in the inpatient setting were as follows: 0.02% for IUM using Truclear 8.0 (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, Massachusetts) and 0.4% for resectoscopic hysteroscopy. No complications were described using Versapoint devices. Office polipectomy reported a total complication rate of 10.1% using Versapoint device (Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology, Somerville, New Jersey) and 1.6% using Truclear 5.0 (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy). The reported recurrence rate after polypectomy was 9.8% using Versapoint device and 2.6% using Truclear 8.0. Finally, the reported intraoperative and postoperative complication rate of IUM related to removal of placental remnants using Truclear 8.0 and MyoSure (Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts) was 12.3%. The available evidence allows us to consider IUM devices as a safe, effective, and cost-effective tool for the removal of intrauterine lesions such as polyps, myomas (type 0 and type 1), and placental remnants. Evidence regarding Truclear 5.0 suggests that it may represent the best choice for office hysteroscopy. Further studies are needed to confirm the available evidence and to validate the long-term safety of IUM in procedures for which current data are not exhaustive (placental remnants removal).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. Practice bulletin no. 128: diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(1):197–206.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Saccardi C, Gizzo S, Patrelli TS, et al. Endometrial surveillance in tamoxifen users: role, timing and accuracy of hysteroscopic investigation: observational longitudinal cohort study. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2013;20(4):455–462.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Technology assessment No. 7: hysteroscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(6):1486–1491.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gizzo S, Bertocco A, Saccardi C, et al. Female sterilization: update on clinical efficacy, side effects and contraindications. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2014;23(5):261–270.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL): Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of submucous leiomyomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(2):152–171.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Florio P, Puzzutiello R, Filippeschi M, et al. Low-dose spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine with intrathecal fentanyl for operative hysteroscopy: a case series study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(1):107–112.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Litta P, Leggieri C, Conte L, Dalla Toffola A, Multinu F, Angioni S. Monopolar versus bipolar device: safety, feasibility, limits and perioperative complications in performing hysteroscopic myomectomy. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2014;41(3):335–338.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Colacurci N, De Franciscis P, Mollo A, et al. Small-diameter hysteroscopy with Versapoint versus resectoscopy with a unipolar knife for the treatment of septate uterus: a prospective randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14(5):622–627.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Bettocchi S, Spinelli M, et al. Review of new office-based hysteroscopic procedures 2003–2009. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4):436–448.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Saridogan E, Tilden D, Sykes D, Davis N, Subramanian D. Costanalysis comparison of outpatient see-and-treat hysteroscopy service with other hysteroscopy service models. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4):518–525.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hidlebaugh D. A comparison of clinical outcomes and cost of office versus hospital hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;4(1):39–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Emanuel MH, Wamsteker K. The intra uterine morcellator: a new hysteroscopic operating technique to remove intrauterine polyps and myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(1):62–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen S, Greenberg JA. Hysteroscopic morcellation for treating intrauterine pathology. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2011;4(2):73–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith PP, Middleton LJ, Connor M, Clark TJ. Hysteroscopic morcellation compared with electrical resection of endometrial polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(4):745–751.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Emanuel MH. New developments in hysteroscopy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(3):421–429.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van Dongen H, Emanuel MH, Wolterbeek R, Trimbos JB, Jansen FW. Hysteroscopic morcellator for removal of intrauterine polyps and myomas: a randomized controlled pilot study among residents in training. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(4):466–471.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamerlynck TW, Dietz V, Schoot BC. Clinical implementation of the hysteroscopic morcellator for removal of intrauterine myomas and polyps. A retrospective descriptive study. Gynecol Surg. 2011;8(2):193–196.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. AlHilli MM, Nixon KE, Hopkins MR, et al. Long-term outcomes after intrauterine morcellation vs hysteroscopic resection of endometrial polyps. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(2):215–221.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Harpham M, Abbott J. Use of a hysteroscopic morcellator to resect miscarriage in a woman with recurrent Asherman syndrome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(6): 1118–1120.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hamerlynck TW, Blikkendaal MD, Schoot BC, Hanstede MM, Jansen FW. An alternative approach for removal of placental remnants: hysteroscopic morcellation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(6):796–802.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Greenberg JA, Miner JD, O’Horo SK. Uterine artery embolization and hysteroscopic resection to treat retained placenta accreta: a case report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(4):342–344.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Gizzo S, Saccardi C, Patrelli TS, et al. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound myomectomy: safety, efficacy, subsequent fertility and quality-of-life improvements, a systematic review. Reprod Sci. 2014;21:465–476.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gizzo S, Ancona E, Anis O, et al. Could vessel ablation by magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound represent a next future gynecological fertility-sparing approach to fibroids? Surg Innov. 2014;21(1):118–119.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rein DT, Schmidt T, Hess AP, Volkmer A, Schöndorf T, Breidenbach M. Hysteroscopic management of residual trophoblastic tissue is superior to ultrasound-guided curettage. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(6):774–778.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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(6):100–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gizzo S, Saccardi C, Di Gangi S, et al. Secondary amenorrhea in severe Asherman’s syndrome: step by step fertility retrieval by Bettocchi’s hysteroscope: some considerations. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2014;23(2):115–119.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Saccardi C, Gizzo S, Ludwig K, et al. Endometrial polyps in women affected by levothyroxine-treated hypothyroidism–histological features, immunohistochemical findings, and possible explanation of etiopathogenic mechanism: a pilot study. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:503419.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Saccardi C, Gizzo S, Noventa M, Ancona E, Borghero A, Litta PS. Limits and complications of laparoscopic myomectomy: which are the best predictors? A large cohort singlecenter experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(5):951–956.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Saccardi C, Conte L, Fabris A, et al. Hysteroscopic enucleation in toto of submucous type 2 myomas: long-term follow-up in women affected by menorrhagia. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(3):426–430.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Woman and Child Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    Marco Noventa MD, Emanuele Ancona MD, Erich Cosmi MD, Donato D’Antona MD & Salvatore Gizzo MD

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Michela Quaranta MD & Amerigo Vitagliano MD

Authors
  1. Marco Noventa MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emanuele Ancona MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michela Quaranta MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amerigo Vitagliano MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erich Cosmi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Donato D’Antona MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Salvatore Gizzo MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salvatore Gizzo MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Noventa, M., Ancona, E., Quaranta, M. et al. Intrauterine Morcellator Devices: The Icon of Hysteroscopic Future or Merely a Marketing Image? A Systematic Review Regarding Safety, Efficacy, Advantages, and Contraindications. Reprod. Sci. 22, 1289–1296 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719115578929

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719115578929

Keywords

Search

Navigation