Valdez-Sinon Arielle N, Frost Anja S, Madison Anita M, Sharaiha Rand El, Patzkowsky Kristin E, Gornet Megan E
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Dr. Valdez-Sinon), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (Drs. Frost and Patzkowsky), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2025 Jul;32(7):646-653.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2025.04.009. Epub 2025 May 6.
To investigate, describe, and compare adverse event reports (AERs) and their patterns amongst commonly used operative hysteroscopy devices.
A secondary analysis of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) published by the Food and Drug Administration.
N/A.
Women who underwent hysteroscopic surgery, with adverse events reported to MAUDE.
Search terms within the MAUDE database included "resectoscope," "hysteroscopic reciprocating morcellator," "MyoSure," and "TruClear." Reports were categorized by device type, patient complications, and required interventions. Statistical analysis utilized Fisher's exact tests.
Between January 2014 and April 2024, 1872 AERs were identified for hysteroscopes: 664 for resectoscopes and 1208 for morcellation devices (MyoSure, N = 645 and TruClear, N = 563). While absolute complication rates are not able to calculated from MAUDE, there were significant differences in the reporting of patient complications: resectoscope devices had higher frequency of infection (p < .01) while morcellation devices had higher frequency reporting of hemorrhage (p < .001), uterine perforation (p < .001), and bowel perforation (p < .001). Morcellation device AERs more often reported operative intervention (1.1% vs 12.4%, p < .001). Subgroup analysis comparing AERs of morcellation devices showed the majority (73.2%) of TruClear AERs registered no patient impact or harm, while only 21.2% of MyoSure AERs reported no patient impact. MyoSure device AERs had higher frequency of hemorrhage (p < .001), infections (p < .001), uterine perforations (p < .001), and bowel perforations (p < .001). Additionally, MyoSure AERs reported more surgical intervention compared to TruClear AEs (19.5% vs 4.3%, p < .001).
While conclusions within the MAUDE database are limited, especially given the lack of data concerning the volume of surgeries done with each device and the voluntary reporting mechanism, there are significant differences in the types of adverse events reported among operative hysteroscopy instruments. Morcellation AERs had a significantly higher frequency of patient complications and described more surgical interventions compared to AERs for resectoscopes. When comparing MyoSure and TruClear, MyoSure AERs described a significantly greater proportion of serious patient complications compared to TruClear device AERs. Devices with similar functions may differ in how stakeholders report complications.
调查、描述和比较常用宫腔镜手术器械的不良事件报告(AERs)及其模式。
对美国食品药品监督管理局发布的制造商和用户设施设备经验(MAUDE)进行二次分析。
无。
接受宫腔镜手术且向MAUDE报告了不良事件的女性。
MAUDE数据库中的搜索词包括“电切镜”“宫腔镜往复式粉碎器”“MyoSure”和“TruClear”。报告按设备类型、患者并发症和所需干预措施进行分类。统计分析采用Fisher精确检验。
2014年1月至2024年4月期间,共识别出1872份宫腔镜不良事件报告:电切镜664份,粉碎设备1208份(MyoSure,n = 645;TruClear,n = 563)。虽然无法从MAUDE中计算出绝对并发症发生率,但患者并发症报告存在显著差异:电切镜设备感染频率较高(p < 0.01),而粉碎设备出血(p < 0.001)、子宫穿孔(p < 0.001)和肠穿孔(p < 0.001)的报告频率较高。粉碎设备的不良事件报告更常提及手术干预(1.1%对12.4%,p < 0.001)。比较粉碎设备不良事件报告的亚组分析显示,TruClear不良事件报告中大部分(73.2%)未对患者造成影响或伤害,而MyoSure不良事件报告中只有21.2%未对患者造成影响。MyoSure设备不良事件报告中出血(p < 0.001)、感染(p < 0.001)、子宫穿孔(p < 0.001)和肠穿孔(p < 0.001)的频率较高。此外,与TruClear不良事件相比,MyoSure不良事件报告的手术干预更多(19.5%对4.3%,p < 0.001)。
虽然MAUDE数据库中的结论有限,特别是考虑到缺乏每种设备手术量的数据以及自愿报告机制,但宫腔镜手术器械报告的不良事件类型存在显著差异。与电切镜的不良事件报告相比,粉碎设备的不良事件报告中患者并发症频率显著更高,且描述的手术干预更多。比较MyoSure和TruClear时,MyoSure不良事件报告中严重患者并发症的比例明显高于TruClear设备不良事件报告。功能相似的设备在利益相关者报告并发症的方式上可能存在差异。