• T F Baskett, S A Farrell, and A W Zilbert.
• Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
• Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Dec 1;92(6):976-8.

ObjectiveTo compare two techniques of irrigation flow control with regard to risk of absorption of uterine irrigation fluid during operative hysteroscopy.MethodsWe compared two techniques of uterine irrigation fluid outflow management-passive gravity outflow and direct connection of the outflow to wall suction-in a randomized controlled trial involving 40 women undergoing hysteroscopic endometrial ablation. The amount of fluid absorbed by each subject was calculated, as were operating time, uterine size, and endometrial pharmacologic preparation. Endometrial thickness and operator view were graded visually by the surgeon.ResultsThe median (range) amount of irrigation fluid absorbed was 450 mL (0-2300) in the group in which passive gravity outflow was used and 0 mL (700 mL excess outflow to 300 mL absorption) in the group in which direct connection of the outflow to wall suction was used (P < .001). None of the other variables that might have influenced uterine irrigation fluid absorption (operating time, uterine size, pharmacologic endometrial preparation, or endometrial thickness) differed between the two groups.ConclusionConnecting the outflow of the uterine irrigation system to wall suction is a simple and effective method of reducing the risk of fluid absorption during endometrial ablation.

17 keywords...

hide…