Article Sidebar
Keywords:
Adhesiolysis hysteroscopy intrauterine
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the journal.
Main Article Content
Review of intrauterine adhesiolysis at the Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria
Abstract
Background: Hysteroscopic adhesiolysis is shown to significantly improve the outcome of intrauterine adhesions (IUA). The Minimally Invasive Surgical Unit (MISU) of our Department recently acquired a hysteroscope which is being used for hysteroscopic adhesiolysis among others.
Materials and Methods: There were 57 patients diagnosed to have IUA of which 54 case notes were available for analysis, giving a retrieval rate of 95%. The information extracted includes age, parity, and menstrual pattern, predisposing factors, treatment option, outcome, complications and the year of the procedure. The data extracted were analyzed using Epi info Version 3.4.1. Chi squared test (Fisher’s exact test) was used to test for statistical difference in the outcome of the modalities of treatment. P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: There were 57 cases of IUA out of 4160 gynecological patients seen, giving a prevalence of 14/1000. The mean age was 28.9 years (SD 4.5) and mean parity was 1.4 (SD 1.4). Etiologic factors include Dilatation and curettage (D and C) (33.3%), Caesarean section (C/S) (31.5%), manual removal of placenta and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) (7.4% each), and unexplained (3.7%). Mode of presentation was secondary amenorrhoea (50%), oligomenorrhoea (22.2%), and hypomenorrhoea (10%). As for the management, 68% had blind procedure while 25.9% had hysteroscopic procedure. Lippes loop was used in all except three patients who had pediatric Foleys catheter instead. Upon follow-up 59.3% resumed normal menses, 11.1% had oligomenorrhoea, hypomenorrhoea 13% and amenorrhoea 5.6%. There was no statistical difference in the outcome of treatment between hysteroscopic adhesiolysis and the blind procedure when return to normal menses is considered as the end point, OR=2.27, CI 0.45-12.65, Fisher exact test (one-tailed) P=0.2184818.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the blind and hysteroscopic procedures. Dilatation and curettage was found to be the commonest cause of IUA.
Materials and Methods: There were 57 patients diagnosed to have IUA of which 54 case notes were available for analysis, giving a retrieval rate of 95%. The information extracted includes age, parity, and menstrual pattern, predisposing factors, treatment option, outcome, complications and the year of the procedure. The data extracted were analyzed using Epi info Version 3.4.1. Chi squared test (Fisher’s exact test) was used to test for statistical difference in the outcome of the modalities of treatment. P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: There were 57 cases of IUA out of 4160 gynecological patients seen, giving a prevalence of 14/1000. The mean age was 28.9 years (SD 4.5) and mean parity was 1.4 (SD 1.4). Etiologic factors include Dilatation and curettage (D and C) (33.3%), Caesarean section (C/S) (31.5%), manual removal of placenta and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) (7.4% each), and unexplained (3.7%). Mode of presentation was secondary amenorrhoea (50%), oligomenorrhoea (22.2%), and hypomenorrhoea (10%). As for the management, 68% had blind procedure while 25.9% had hysteroscopic procedure. Lippes loop was used in all except three patients who had pediatric Foleys catheter instead. Upon follow-up 59.3% resumed normal menses, 11.1% had oligomenorrhoea, hypomenorrhoea 13% and amenorrhoea 5.6%. There was no statistical difference in the outcome of treatment between hysteroscopic adhesiolysis and the blind procedure when return to normal menses is considered as the end point, OR=2.27, CI 0.45-12.65, Fisher exact test (one-tailed) P=0.2184818.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the blind and hysteroscopic procedures. Dilatation and curettage was found to be the commonest cause of IUA.
