{"title":"Food and Drug Administration Database Secondary Analysis: Difference in Operative Hysteroscopy Device Safety Profiles","authors":"AN Valdez-Sinon , AM Madison , ME Gornet","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.09.097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study Objective</h3><div>This study compared adverse event reports (AEs) amongst commonly used operative hysteroscopy devices.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A secondary analysis of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE)-a voluntary reporting system by the Food and Drug Administration. Search terms included “resectoscope,” “hysteroscopic reciprocating morcellator”, \"MyoSure,” and “TruClear.” Statistical analysis utilized Chi-squared tests.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>N/A.</div></div><div><h3>Patients or Participants</h3><div>Between 2014-present, 1872 AEs were identified for hysteroscopes: 664 for resectoscopes and 1208 for morcellation devices (MyoSure, N=645 and TruClear, N=563).</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>N/A.</div></div><div><h3>Measurements and Main Results</h3><div>MyoSure and TruClear device AEs were combined into a “morcellation device” composite group and compared to resectoscope AEs. There were significant differences in patient complications: morcellation devices had higher rates of infection (p=0.0019), hemorrhage (p<0.00001), burns (p<0.00001), uterine perforation (p<0.00001), and bowel perforation (p<0.00001). Morcellation device AEs more often reported surgical intervention: hysterectomy (0.2 vs 3.0%, p<0.001), laparoscopy/laparotomy (0.9 vs 8.5%, p<0.001). Subgroup analysis comparing morcellation devices showed the majority (73.18%) of TruClear AEs reported no direct patient impact or harm, while only 21.2% of MyoSure AEs reported no patient impact. Compared to TruClear devices, MyoSure devices reported more infections (p=0.0012), hemorrhage (<0.00001), uterine perforations (<0.00001), and bowel perforations (p<0.00001). Additionally, MyoSure AEs reported more surgical intervention, including hysterectomy (4.8 vs 0.9%, p=0.00007) and laparoscopy/laparotomy (13.5 vs 2.8%, p<0.0001), comparatively. Though death is a rare complication of hysteroscopy, of 21 deaths reported, 17 were associated with MyoSure devices.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Significant differences in AEs exist among operative hysteroscopy instruments. Morcellation AEs comprised significant and substantial patient impact and surgical interventions compared to resectoscopes. When comparing Myosure and Truclear, MyoSure had significantly more serious patient complications (uterine/bowel perforation, infection, hemorrhage) compared to TruClear device AEs. It is vital for physicians to recognize associated risks and understand that devices with similar functions may differ significantly in safety profiles.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":"31 11","pages":"Page S22"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465024005053","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study Objective
This study compared adverse event reports (AEs) amongst commonly used operative hysteroscopy devices.
Design
A secondary analysis of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE)-a voluntary reporting system by the Food and Drug Administration. Search terms included “resectoscope,” “hysteroscopic reciprocating morcellator”, "MyoSure,” and “TruClear.” Statistical analysis utilized Chi-squared tests.
Setting
N/A.
Patients or Participants
Between 2014-present, 1872 AEs were identified for hysteroscopes: 664 for resectoscopes and 1208 for morcellation devices (MyoSure, N=645 and TruClear, N=563).
Interventions
N/A.
Measurements and Main Results
MyoSure and TruClear device AEs were combined into a “morcellation device” composite group and compared to resectoscope AEs. There were significant differences in patient complications: morcellation devices had higher rates of infection (p=0.0019), hemorrhage (p<0.00001), burns (p<0.00001), uterine perforation (p<0.00001), and bowel perforation (p<0.00001). Morcellation device AEs more often reported surgical intervention: hysterectomy (0.2 vs 3.0%, p<0.001), laparoscopy/laparotomy (0.9 vs 8.5%, p<0.001). Subgroup analysis comparing morcellation devices showed the majority (73.18%) of TruClear AEs reported no direct patient impact or harm, while only 21.2% of MyoSure AEs reported no patient impact. Compared to TruClear devices, MyoSure devices reported more infections (p=0.0012), hemorrhage (<0.00001), uterine perforations (<0.00001), and bowel perforations (p<0.00001). Additionally, MyoSure AEs reported more surgical intervention, including hysterectomy (4.8 vs 0.9%, p=0.00007) and laparoscopy/laparotomy (13.5 vs 2.8%, p<0.0001), comparatively. Though death is a rare complication of hysteroscopy, of 21 deaths reported, 17 were associated with MyoSure devices.
Conclusion
Significant differences in AEs exist among operative hysteroscopy instruments. Morcellation AEs comprised significant and substantial patient impact and surgical interventions compared to resectoscopes. When comparing Myosure and Truclear, MyoSure had significantly more serious patient complications (uterine/bowel perforation, infection, hemorrhage) compared to TruClear device AEs. It is vital for physicians to recognize associated risks and understand that devices with similar functions may differ significantly in safety profiles.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.