ArticleJournal of minimally invasive gynecology2025
Food and Drug Administration Database Secondary Analysis: Difference in Operative Hysteroscopy Device Adverse Event Reporting.
Article in Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveTo investigate, describe, and compare adverse event reports (AERs) and their patterns amongst commonly used operative hysteroscopy devices.
designA secondary analysis of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) published by the Food and Drug Administration.
settingN/A. PATIENTS OR
participantsWomen who underwent hysteroscopic surgery, with adverse events reported to MAUDE.
interventionsSearch 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. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsBetween 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).
conclusionWhile 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.