Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37428263›Full record

ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024

Uterine cervical stenosis: from classification to advances in management. Overcoming the obstacles to access the uterine cavity.

Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Maria Chiara De Angelis, Luigi Della Corte, Stefania Saponara, Jose Carugno, Antonio Simone Laganà, Péter Török, Raffaele Tinelli, Tirso Pérez-Medina, Sinem Ertas and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Salvatore Giovanni VitaleDivision of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Maria Chiara De AngelisDepartment of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Luigi Della CorteDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Stefania SaponaraDivision of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. saponara.stef@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1022-0958
Jose CarugnoDivision of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Antonio Simone LaganàUnit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS "Civico-Di Cristina-Benfratelli", Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Péter TörökDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Raffaele TinelliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Valle d'Itria" Hospital, Martina Franca, Taranto, Italy.
Tirso Pérez-MedinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda, Autónoma University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Sinem ErtasDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Bulent UrmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Stefano AngioniDivision of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date hysteroscopy is the gold standard technique for the evaluation and management of intrauterine pathologies. The cervical canal represents the access route to the uterine cavity. The presence of cervical stenosis often makes entry into the uterine cavity difficult and occasionally impossible. Cervical stenosis has a multifactorial etiology. It is the result of adhesion processes that can lead to the narrowing or total obliteration of the cervical canal. PURPOSE: In this review, we summarize the scientific evidence about cervical stenosis, aiming to identify the best strategy to overcome this challenging condition.

methodsThe literature review followed the scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles (SANRA). All articles describing the hysteroscopic management of cervical stenosis were considered eligible. Only original papers that reported data on the topic were included.

resultsVarious strategies have been proposed to address cervical stenosis, including surgical and non-surgical methods. Medical treatments such as the preprocedural use of cervical-ripening agents or osmotic dilators have been explored. Surgical options include the use of cervical dilators and hysteroscopic treatments.

conclusionsCervical stenosis can present challenges in achieving successful intrauterine procedures. Operative hysteroscopy has been shown to have the highest success rate, particularly in cases of severe cervical stenosis, and is currently considered the gold standard for managing this condition. Despite the availability of miniaturized instruments that have made the management of cervical stenosis more feasible, it remains a complex task, even for experienced hysteroscopists.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical DiseasesUterusCervix UteriConstriction, PathologicFemaleHumansHysteroscopyPregnancyCervical stenosisHysteroscopyInfertilityTherapy

Identifiers

PMID37428263
PMCPMC10866788

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.