Food and Drug Administration Database Secondary Analysis: Difference in Operative Hysteroscopy Device Safety Profiles

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of minimally invasive gynecology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.09.097
AN Valdez-Sinon , AM Madison , ME Gornet
{"title":"Food and Drug Administration Database Secondary Analysis: Difference in Operative Hysteroscopy Device Safety Profiles","authors":"AN Valdez-Sinon ,&nbsp;AM Madison ,&nbsp;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&lt;0.00001), burns (p&lt;0.00001), uterine perforation (p&lt;0.00001), and bowel perforation (p&lt;0.00001). Morcellation device AEs more often reported surgical intervention: hysterectomy (0.2 vs 3.0%, p&lt;0.001), laparoscopy/laparotomy (0.9 vs 8.5%, p&lt;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 (&lt;0.00001), uterine perforations (&lt;0.00001), and bowel perforations (p&lt;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&lt;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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
食品药品管理局数据库二次分析:宫腔镜手术器械安全性概况的差异
研究目的本研究比较了常用宫腔镜手术设备的不良事件报告(AEs)。设计对制造商和用户设施设备经验(MAUDE)进行二次分析--MAUDE是美国食品和药物管理局的自愿报告系统。搜索关键词包括 "切除镜"、"宫腔镜往复式切除器"、"MyoSure "和 "TruClear"。干预措施N/A.测量和主要结果将MyoSure和TruClear装置的AE合并为 "切除装置 "综合组,并与切除镜AE进行比较。患者并发症存在明显差异:Morcellation 设备的感染率(p=0.0019)、出血率(p<0.00001)、烧伤率(p<0.00001)、子宫穿孔率(p<0.00001)和肠穿孔率(p<0.00001)均较高。Morcellation设备的AE更常报告手术干预:子宫切除术(0.2 vs 3.0%,p<0.001)、腹腔镜/腹膜切开术(0.9 vs 8.5%,p<0.001)。比较胃切除术器械的分组分析表明,大多数(73.18%)TruClear AE 报告没有对患者造成直接影响或伤害,而只有 21.2% 的 MyoSure AE 报告没有对患者造成影响。与 TruClear 设备相比,MyoSure 设备报告的感染(p=0.0012)、出血(<0.00001)、子宫穿孔(<0.00001)和肠穿孔(p<0.00001)更多。此外,MyoSure AE 报告的手术干预较多,包括子宫切除术(4.8% vs 0.9%,p=0.00007)和腹腔镜/腹膜切开术(13.5% vs 2.8%,p<0.0001)。尽管死亡是宫腔镜手术的罕见并发症,但在报告的21例死亡病例中,17例与MyoSure设备有关。与切除镜相比,Morcellation AEs 对患者和手术干预造成了重大影响。在比较 Myosure 和 Truclear 时,MyoSure 的严重患者并发症(子宫/肠穿孔、感染、出血)明显多于 TruClear 装置的 AEs。医生必须认识到相关风险,了解功能相似的器械在安全性方面可能存在很大差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
37 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Is vaginal repair a good option for severe cesarean scar defect? Comparison of women with or without residual myometrium. Pelvic splenosis Mimicking Pelvic Tumor. Uterine Artery Embolization before Myomectomy: Is it worth the trouble? Vaginal Bulge is Not Always Prolapse. Use of Uterine Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Uterine Fibroids: A Comparative Review of Major National Guidelines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1