Manual morcellation (Resectr™ 9Fr) vs electromechanical morcellation (TruClear™) for hysteroscopic polypectomy: A randomized controlled non‐inferiority trial

INTRODUCTION: Meta‐analyses comparing hysteroscopic electromechanical morcellation with electrosurgical resection showed a shorter operating time for electromechanical morcellation, mainly for polypectomy. The Resectr™ 9Fr is a new hysteroscopic manual morcellator, designed to simplify this procedure. We aimed to compare manual with electromechanical morcellation for hysteroscopic polypectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This two‐center randomized controlled non‐inferiority trial was performed from 2018 to 2021 in the Catharina Hospital and the Ghent University Hospital. The study was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (NL6922; ICTRP ID: NTR7118). One hundred and forty women with polyps (between 8 and 20 mm) scheduled for hysteroscopic removal were randomized between manual (Resectr™ 9Fr) or electromechanical (TruClear™) morcellation. The primary outcome was time (instrumentation set‐up, resection, and total procedure time). RESULTS: The non‐inferiority margin for the primary outcome time was 1.3. Mean instrumentation set‐up time was 10% shorter with the manual compared with the electromechanical morcellator (estimated mean ratio manual/electromechanical = 0.9; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.8–1.1). Mean resection time was 30% longer with the manual compared with the motor‐driven system (estimated mean ratio manual/electromechanical = 1.3; 97.5% CI 0.9–1.9). Mean total procedure time was 10% longer with the manual compared with the electromechanical morcellator (estimated mean ratio manual/electromechanical = 1.1; 95% CI 0.91–1.298). The estimated odds (electromechanical/manual) of better surgeon's safety, effective and comfort scores were, respectively, 4.5 (95% CI 0.9–22.1), 7.0 (95% CI 1.5–31.9), and 5.9 (95% CI 1.1–30.3) times higher with the motor‐driven compared with the manual morcellator. Conversion rates and incomplete resection rates were comparable in both groups (manual vs electromechanical) (7.6% [4/66] vs 2.9% [2/68] and 6.1% [4/66] vs 3.0% [2/66], respectively). No intraoperative and postoperative complications were registered. CONCLUSIONS: The manual morcellator was non‐inferior to the electromechanical morcellator for hysteroscopic polypectomy in terms of mean instrumentation set‐up time and total procedure time. Results on resection time were inconclusive. Conversion and incomplete resection rates were within the range reported in the literature. Surgeon's reported rating for both devices was high, however, in favor of the motor‐driven tissue removal system.