Gas embolism during hysteroscopic surgery using bipolar or monopolar diathermia: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the incidence and amount of gas embolism during hysteroscopic surgery using either monopolar or bipolar diathermia and to investigate the relationship between the severity of gas embolism and the amount of intravasation of distension fluid. STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized, observer-blinded trial. Fifty patients, scheduled for hysteroscopic surgery, were assigned to either monopolar or bipolar diathermia. Transesophageal echocardiography was used to detect and classify gas embolism (grade 0-IV). Intravasation of distension fluid was measured. RESULTS: Venous gas embolism was observed in all but 1 patient. A higher incidence of more extensive (grade IV) was seen during bipolar diathermia (42% vs 13%; P = .031). Paradoxical embolism was observed in 2 patients. When intravasation exceeded 1000 mL, significantly more grade IV venous gas embolism was seen (P = .049). CONCLUSION: During hysteroscopic surgery, gas embolism was equally observed irrespective of the type of diathermia. However, more extensive embolism was observed when intravasation of distension fluid exceeded 1 L. These results question the acceptance of up to 2500 mL intravasation of distension fluid if bipolar diathermia is use

The HYSTER study: the effect of intracervically administered terlipressin versus placebo on the number of gaseous emboli and fluid intravasation during hysteroscopic surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract Background Transcervical resection of myoma or endometrium is a safe, hysteroscopic, minimally invasive procedure. However, intravasation of distension fluid is a common phenomenon during these procedures. In a previous study we observed venous gas emboli in almost every patient. The severity of hysteroscopic-derived embolization has been shown to be correlated to the amount of intravasation. In addition, paradoxical gas embolism, which is potentially dangerous, was observed in several patients. Studies have shown a reduction of intravasation by using intracervically administered vasopressin during hysteroscopy. We think that its analog, terlipressin, should have the same effect. In our previous research we observed more gaseous emboli as intravasation increased. Whether or not the insertion of intracervically administered terlipressin leads to a lower incidence and severity of gas embolism is unknown. We hypothesize that intracervically administered terlipressin leads to a reduction of intravasation with a lower incidence and severity of gas embolism. Terlipressin may be of benefit during hysteroscopic surgery. Methods/design Forty-eight patients (ASA 1 or 2) scheduled for transcervical resection of large, types 1–2 myoma or extensive endometrium resection will be included. In a double-blind fashion patients will be randomized 1:1 according to surgical treatment using either intracervically administered terlipressin or placebo. Transesophageal echocardiography will be used to observe and record embolic events. A pre- and post-procedure venous blood sample will be taken to calculate intravasation based on hemodilution. Our primary endpoint will be how terlipressin influences the severity of embolic events. Secondary endpoints include the effect of terlipressin on the amount of intravasation and on hemodynamic parameters. Discussion If terlipressin does indeed reduce the number of gaseous emboli and intravasation occurring during hysteroscopic surgery, it would be a simple method to minimize potential adverse events. It also allows for prolonged operating time before the threshold of intravasation is reached, thereby reducing the need for a second operation. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (Dutch Trial Register), ID: NTR5577. Registered retrospectively on 18 December 2015

The (cost) effectiveness of procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia for hysteroscopic myomectomy, a multicentre randomised controlled trial : PROSECCO trial, a study protocol

BACKGROUND: In women with abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids are a frequent finding. In case of heavy menstrual bleeding and presence of submucosal type 0-1 fibroids, hysteroscopic resection is the treatment of first choice, as removal of these fibroids is highly effective. Hysteroscopic myomectomy is currently usually performed in the operating theatre. A considerable reduction in costs and a higher patient satisfaction are expected when procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol (PSA) in an outpatient setting is applied. However, both safety and effectiveness - including the necessity for re-intervention due to incomplete resection - have not yet been evaluated. METHODS: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design and will be performed in the Netherlands. Women > 18 years with a maximum of 3 symptomatic type 0 or 1 submucosal fibroids with a maximum diameter of 3.5 cm are eligible to participate in the trial. After informed consent, 205 women will be randomised to either hysteroscopic myomectomy using procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol in an outpatient setting or hysteroscopic myomectomy using general anaesthesia in a clinical setting in the operating theatre. Primary outcome will be the percentage of complete resections, based on transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are cost effectiveness, menstrual blood loss (Pictorial blood assessment chart), quality of life, pain, return to daily activities/work, hospitalization, (post) operative complications and re-interventions. Women will be followed up to one year after hysteroscopic myomectomy. DISCUSSION: This study may demonstrate comparable effectiveness of hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia in a safe and patient friendly environment, whilst achieving a significant cost reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register, number NTR5357 . Registered 11th of August 2015

The (cost) effectiveness of procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia for hysteroscopic myomectomy, a multicentre randomised controlled trial : PROSECCO trial, a study protocol

BACKGROUND: In women with abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids are a frequent finding. In case of heavy menstrual bleeding and presence of submucosal type 0-1 fibroids, hysteroscopic resection is the treatment of first choice, as removal of these fibroids is highly effective. Hysteroscopic myomectomy is currently usually performed in the operating theatre. A considerable reduction in costs and a higher patient satisfaction are expected when procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol (PSA) in an outpatient setting is applied. However, both safety and effectiveness - including the necessity for re-intervention due to incomplete resection - have not yet been evaluated. METHODS: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design and will be performed in the Netherlands. Women > 18 years with a maximum of 3 symptomatic type 0 or 1 submucosal fibroids with a maximum diameter of 3.5 cm are eligible to participate in the trial. After informed consent, 205 women will be randomised to either hysteroscopic myomectomy using procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol in an outpatient setting or hysteroscopic myomectomy using general anaesthesia in a clinical setting in the operating theatre. Primary outcome will be the percentage of complete resections, based on transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are cost effectiveness, menstrual blood loss (Pictorial blood assessment chart), quality of life, pain, return to daily activities/work, hospitalization, (post) operative complications and re-interventions. Women will be followed up to one year after hysteroscopic myomectomy. DISCUSSION: This study may demonstrate comparable effectiveness of hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia in a safe and patient friendly environment, whilst achieving a significant cost reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register, number NTR5357 . Registered 11th of August 2015