A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of hysteroscopic electric resection versus vaginal surgery in the treatment of uterine scar defects after cesarean section.

BackgroundCesarean sections are increasingly likely to be applied; however, uterine scar defects (USD) often remain after delivery. The two existing treatment methods, hysteroscopic electric resection and vaginal surgery, are still controversial in terms of efficacy and safety. So, this paper to compares the effectiveness and safety of hysteroscopic electric resection and vaginal surgery in the treatment of USD after cesarean section.MethodsWe performed a related literature search from main databases. According to the PICOS principles inclusion criteria were adult female USD patients to evaluate the efficacy of hysteroscopic resection and vaginal surgery for the treatment of USD, outcome data could be extracted to compare the efficacy and safety of the two procedures. Subsequently, according to the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the retrieved articles, studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were eliminated. The RevMan 5.20 software was used for meta-analysis and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2.0) was used to assess the risk of bias. The effectiveness and safety of hysteroscopic resection and vaginal surgery in the treatment of USD patients after cesarean section were compared.ResultsEight articles were finally included, with a total of 191 patients in the hysteroscopic electric resection group and 212 patients in the vaginal surgery group. Compared with hysteroscopic resection and vaginal surgery, there is less intraoperative blood loss [mean difference (MD) is -25.23, P<0.00001], shorter operation time (MD is -29.45, P<0.00001), and shorter hospital stay (MD is -1.87, P<0.00001), but menstrual improvement risk ratio (RR) is 0.71 (P=0.51) and diverticulum recovery RR is 0.60 (P=0.43) there were no significant differences.DiscussionHysteroscopic electric resection provides a more satisfactory outcome than vaginal surgery in terms of intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay. However, the sample size of the study was not large enough and some studies had high risk of bias, more large-sample multi-center high quality studies are needed for further comprehensive comparative analysis.