Ways to prevent air embolism during hysteroscopy


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Objective. To improve methods to prevent air embolism (AE) during hysteroscopy with consideration for accumulated clinical experience. Subject and methods. A longitudinal observational retrospective case-control study was conducted at the S.P. Botkin City Clinical Hospital. The course of hysteroscopic interventions and the development of AE were analyzed examining the case histories of 4590 women aged 19 to 85 years with intrauterine pathology (IUP) who had undergone hysteroscopy in January 2010 to January 2013, including 815 (17.8%) who had hysteroresectoscopy. The findings were processed using a package of Statistica programs for Windows 6.0 Stat-Soft. Results. During the study, the development of AE was not observed in the patients with IUP during hysteroscopy. Owing to the fact that that the technology of liquid hysteroscopy was strictly observed, there were even no conditions for AE occurrence in 3750 (81.7%) women with IUP without electrosurgical interventions. To rule out AE requires that a delivery hose system and a hysteroscope should be freed of air bubbles and, where possible, liquid feeding systems using air pressure be abandoned. Where resected tissue segments must be removed from the uterine cavity, the prevention of AE involves the creation of conditions for free evacuation of air bubbles from the uterine cavity. The hysteroscope is inserted assembled with pre-supplied liquid and the tap of the outflow system being fully open. Environmental air aspirations are possible when Trendelenburg’s position is used in combination with the open outer resectoscope barrel left in the cervical canal (for example, electrode replacement); the prevention is to close the lumen of the outer barrel with a mandrin.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Armen Rubenovich Bagdasaryan

Academician V.I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: armenikus@mail.ru
candidate of medicial sciences, doctoral candidate

Sergey Eduardovich Sarkisov

Academician V.I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: 734l497@mail.ru
doctor of medical sciences, professor, head of the innovation Department of minimally invasive technologies

References

  1. Wortman M. Complications of hysteroscopic surgery. In: Isaacson K.B., ed. Complications of gynecologic endoscopic surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2006: 185-200.
  2. Munro M.G. Complications of hysteroscopic and uterine resectoscopic surgery. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North Am. 2010; 37(3): 399-425.
  3. Панкратов В.В., Ягудаева И.П., Давыдов А.И., Белоцерковцева Л.Д. Качество здоровья и отдаленные результаты гистерорезектоскопии у больных подслизистой миомой матки. Вопросы гинекологии, акушерства и перинатологии. 2012; 11(3): 5-10. [Pankratov V.V., Yagudaeva I.P., Davydov A.I., Belotserkovtseva L.D. Quality health and long-term results of hysteroresectoscopy in patients with submucosal myoma. Questions of gynecology, obstetrics and perinatology. 2012; 11 (3): 5-10.]
  4. Discepola F, Valenti D.A., Reinhold C., Tulandi T. Analysis of arterial blood vessels surrounding the myoma: relevance to myomectomy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007; 110(6): 1301-3.
  5. Penninx J.P, Mol B.W., Engels R., van Rumste M.M., Kleijn C., Koks C.A. et al. Bipolar radiofrequency endometrial ablation compared with hydrothermablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 116(4): 819-26.
  6. Fulop T., Rakoczi I., Barna I. NovaSure impedance controlled endometrial ablation: long-term follow-up results. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2007; 14(1): 85-90.
  7. Савельева Г.М., Бреусенко В.Г., Каппушева Л.М. Гистероскопия. Атлас и руководство. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2014. 248 с. [Savelyeva G.M., Breusenko V.G., Kappusheva L.M. Hysteroscopy. Atlas and Guide. M.: GEOTAR Media; 2014. 248 p.]
  8. Farrugia M., Hussain S.Y. Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation using HydroThermAblator in an outpatient hysteroscopy clinic: feasibility and acceptability. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2006; 13(3): 178-82.
  9. Федоров И.В., Сигал Е.И., Бурмистров М.В. Осложнения эндоскопической хирургии, гинекологии и урологии. Руководство для врачей. М.: Триада-Х; 2012. 288 с. [Fedorov I.V., Sigal E.I., Burmistrov M.V. Complications of endoscopic surgery, gynecology and urology. Guide for physicians. M.: Triad-X; 2012. 288 p.]
  10. Gurtcheff S.E., Sharp H.T. Complications associated with global endometrial ablation: the utility of the MAUDE database. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003; 102(6): 1278-82.
  11. Anger J.T., Litwin M.S., Wang Q., Pashos C.L., Rodriguez L.V. Complications of sling surgery among female medicare beneficiaries. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007; 109(3): 707-14.
  12. Savage U.K., Masters S.J., Smid M.C., Hung Y.Y., Jacobson G.F. Hysteroscopic sterilization in a large group practice: experience and effectiveness. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 114(6): 1227-31.
  13. Rauramo I., Elo I., Istre O. Long-term treatment of menorrhagia with levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus endometrial resection. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004; 104(6): 1314-21.
  14. Gariepy A.M., Creinin M.D., Schwarz E.B., Smith K.J. Reliability of laparoscopic compared with hysteroscopic sterilization at 1 year: a decision analysis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 118(2, Pt1): 273-9.
  15. Guillot E., Omnes S., Yazbeck C., Medelenat P. Endometrial ablation using hydrothermablator: results of a French multicenter study. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 2008; 36(1): 45-50.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2014 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies