Background It is of vital importance to focus on the prevention of intrauterine adhesion(IUA) relapse. Up to now, which method has a higher efficacy is still a matter of controversy. We tried to find a better method. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, all of the 69 included IUA patients experienced transcervical resection of adhesion(TCRA), and after surgery, 31 patients were placed special intrauterine balloon(IUB) and 38 patients were placed intrauterine contraception device(IUD). All IUA patients had undergone post-operative hormone sequential therapy with estrogen-progesterone and adequate course of antibiotics therapy. Fisher’s exact test, logistic regression method, Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression model were used for statistical analysis. Results The readhesion rate significantly varied from patients in IUB group and IUD group, in 15.39% and 54.06% respectively(P = 0.002). For recurrent moderate IUA patients, the severity of patients in IUB group had been significantly reduced than IUD group(P = 0.035). For severe IUA patients, cold knife management had a greater advantage than electric instrument(P = 0.011). There was a significant difference in the intrauterine pregnancy rate of IUA patients in IUB group and IUD group after treatment, in 55.56% and 14.29%, respectively(P = 0.015). Conclusions Patients in this special IUB group had better outcomes than IUD. For preventing readhesion and improving conception rate, the use of cold knife during procedure, placing IUB, estrogen therapy and adequate course of antibiotics therapy after TCRA all have positive influence.
Purpose This study aimed to compare the efficacy of a special kind of intrauterine balloon (IUB) and that of an intrauterine contraception device (IUD) for patients with IUAs after transcervical resection of adhesion (TCRA). Methods In this retrospective cohort study, after TCRA, 31 patients received a special IUB, and 38 patients received an IUD. The Fisher exact test, logistic regression method, Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression model were used for statistical analysis. A two-sided value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The readhesion rate significantly differed between the IUB group and IUD group, at 15.39% and 54.06%, respectively (P = 0.002). For recurrent moderate IUA, patients in the IUB group had lower scores than patients in the IUD group (P = 0.035). There was a significant difference in the intrauterine pregnancy rate of IUA patients in the IUB group and IUD group after treatment, with rates of 55.56% and 14.29%, respectively (P = 0.015). Conclusion Patients in the special IUB group had better outcomes than those in the IUD group, which has certain guiding significance for clinical work.
Purpose This study aimed to compare the efficacy of a special kind of intrauterine balloon (IUB) and that of an intrauterine contraception device (IUD) for patients with intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) after transcervical resection of adhesion (TCRA). Methods In this retrospective cohort study, after TCRA, 31 patients received a special IUB, and 38 patients received an IUD. The Fisher exact test, logistic regression method, Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression model were used for statistical analysis. A two-sided value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The readhesion rate significantly differed between the IUB group and IUD group, at 15.39% and 54.06%, respectively (P = 0.002). For recurrent moderate IUA, patients in the IUB group had lower scores than patients in the IUD group (P = 0.035). There was a significant difference in the intrauterine pregnancy rate of IUA patients in the IUB group and IUD group after treatment, with rates of 55.56% and 14.29%, respectively (P = 0.015). Conclusion Patients in the special IUB group had better outcomes than those in the IUD group, which has a certain guiding significance for clinical work.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.