A comparative study between manual vacuum aspiration and electronic suction for surgical treatment of abortion
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20213446Keywords:
MVA, EVA, Pain, AbortionAbstract
Background: Present study is done to study the safety, efficacy and complications of using manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) for surgical management of first trimester abortion in comparison to electronic suction.
Methods: It is a retrospective observational study conducted in department of obstetrics and gynecology at tertiary care hospital. Out of 100 cases taken, 50 abortions were terminated by MVA and 50 were terminated by electric suction/vacuum aspiration (EVA).
Results: In this study, majority of the patients were primigravida (60%). Most of the patients had period of gestation between 7 to 9 weeks (40%) followed by up to 6 weeks (33%) in both groups. Time taken for the procedure was less in MVA (5-9 min.) than electronic suction (7-11 min.). In terms of complications, blood loss ≥100 ml was more with EVA (18%) compared to MVA (6%). Uterine perforation was seen with EVA (4%) and none with MVA. As far as success rate is concerned, EVA got 98% while MVA got 90%. Post-operative hospital stay was less with MVA (≤12 hours) than EVA (up to 24 hours). Post-operative pain perception was less with MVA (18% severe pain) while with EVA, 36% with severe pain.
Conclusions: Both the evacuation techniques are almost equally effective and safe, still duration; post-operative pain and hospital stay are less with MVA. Success rate is better with EVA.
References
Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress. Guttmacher Institute. 2009;17.
WHO. Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of the Incidence of Unsafe Abortion and Associated Mortality in 2003. 2003;14. Available at: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/9789241596121/en/. Accessed on 3 June 2021.
Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization. Unsafe abortion; global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality. 2008;6. Available at: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/ publications/unsafe_abortion/9789241501118/en/. Accessed on 3 June 2021.
Park K. Park’s textbook of preventive and social medicine. 21st Edn. New Delhi: Banarasidas Bhanot. 2011;468.
World Health Organization. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems Second edition. 2012. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/9789241548434/en/. Accessed 01 August, 2021.
Kakinuma T, Kakinuma K, Yukka S, Yoshimasha K, Koyomi S, Motomasha I et al. Safety and efficacy of manual vacuum suction compared with conventional dilatation and sharp curettage and electric vacuum aspiration in surgical treatment of miscarriage: a randomized control trial. BMC Pregnancy and Child birth. 2020;20:695.
Tasmin N, Mahmud G, Fatima S, Sultana M. Manual vacuum aspiration: a safe and cost- effective substitute of electric vacuum aspiration for the surgical management of early pregnancy loss. J Pak Med Assoc. 2011;61(2):149-53.
Dutta BK, Samantha S. A comparative study between manual vacuum aspiration and electrical suction in first trimester MTP. New J OBGYN. 2018;4(2):154-7.
Wen J, Cai QY, Deng F, Li YP. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for first trimester abortion: a systemic review. BJOG. 2008;115(1):5-13.
