BackgroundA caesarean section (CS) can cause a defect or disruption of the myometrium at the site of the uterine scar, called a niche. In recent years, an association between a niche and postmenstrual spotting after a CS has been demonstrated. Hysteroscopic resection of these niches is thought to reduce spotting and menstrual pain. However, there are no randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of a hysteroscopic niche resection.Methods/DesignWe planned a multicentre randomised trial comparing hysteroscopic niche resection to no intervention. We study women with postmenstrual spotting after a CS and a niche with a residual myometrium of at least 3 mm during sonohysterography. After informed consent is obtained, eligible women will be randomly allocated to hysteroscopic resection of the niche or expectant management for 6 months.The primary outcome is the number of days with postmenstrual spotting during one menstrual cycle 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are menstrual characteristics, menstruation related pain and experienced discomfort due to spotting or menstrual pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction, sexual function, urological symptoms, medical consultations, medication use, complications, lost productivity and medical costs. Measurements will be performed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after randomisation. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective at 6 months after randomisation.DiscussionThis trial will provide insight in the (cost)effectiveness of hysteroscopic resection of a niche versus expectant management in women who have postmenstrual spotting and a niche with sufficient residual myometrium to perform a hysteroscopic niche resection.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register NTR3269. Registered 1 February 2012. ZonMw Grant number 80-82305-97-12030

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of hysteroscopy for the detection and treatment of endometrial polyps versus expectant management in women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB), a thickened endometrium and benign endometrial sampling.Design Multicentre, randomised controlled trial.Setting Three academic hospitals and nine non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.Population Women with PMB, an endometrial thickness >4 mm and benign result from endometrial sampling.Methods Women were randomised to either further diagnostic workup by hysteroscopy (preceded by saline infusion sonography) or expectant management.Main outcomes The primary outcome measure was recurrence of PMB within a year after randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were time to recurrent bleeding and recurrent bleeding after more than 1 year. In the hysteroscopy group, the presence of polyps and the results of their histology were registered.Results Between January 2010 and October 2013, 200 women were randomised; 98 to hysteroscopy and 102 to expectant management. Within 1 year a total of 15 women (15.3%) in the hysteroscopy group experienced recurrent bleeding, versus 18 (18.0%) in the expectant management group (relative risk 0.85 (95% CI 0.46-1.59). In the hysteroscopy group, 50/98 (51%) polyps were diagnosed of which 6/98 (6%) showed evidence of endometrial (pre)malignancy; final pathology results after hysterectomy showed three women with hyperplasia with atypia and three women with endometrial cancer. ConclusionIn women with PMB, a thickened endometrium and benign endometrial sampling, operative hysteroscopy does not reduce recurrent bleeding. Hysteroscopy detected focal endometrial (pre)malignancy in 6% of women who had benign endometrial sampling. This finding indicates that in these women, further diagnostic workup is warranted to detect focal (pre)malignancies, missed by blind endometrial sampling.Keywords Endometrial carcinoma, endometrial polyp, endometrial sampling, hysteroscopy. General gynaecologyTweetable abstract In women with PMB, hysteroscopy does not reduce recurrent bleeding but is warranted to detect focal malignancy.

STUDY QUESTION Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between −0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96–1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between −0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71–2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38–1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between −1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports ‘other’ from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, ‘other’ from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 31 July 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 26 January 2016.

(Abstracted from BJOG 2017;124:243–249) There is a 2% lifetime risk among women of developing a cyst or abscess of the Bartholin gland. These usually occur during reproductive ages; both can limit activity, and an abscess can also cause extreme pain.