Complication trends in gynecologic endoscopy: a global registry review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20254320Keywords:
Minimally invasive gynecology, Gynecologic laparoscopy, Hysteroscopy, Endoscopic surgery, Registries, Complications, Quality improvementAbstract
Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) has expanded substantially over the past decade, supported by technological advances, structured surgical training, and enhanced perioperative care pathways. Although MIGS offers clear benefits over laparotomy, clinically significant complications—including vascular, bowel, and urinary tract injuries in laparoscopy and uterine perforation, fluid overload, and gas embolism in hysteroscopy—remain important contributors to morbidity. Earlier literature, primarily derived from single-centre retrospective studies, was limited by inconsistent definitions and incomplete reporting, prompting greater reliance on national and multinational registries to capture real-world outcomes. This narrative review synthesises evidence from registry analyses, large administrative databases, and institutional audits published between 2015 and 2025 to evaluate complication patterns, risk factors, and prevention strategies in gynecologic laparoscopy and hysteroscopy. Across datasets, advanced age, elevated BMI, prior abdominal surgery, high ASA class, prolonged operative duration, and increased procedural complexity consistently emerged as risk factors. Preventive measures—including structured skills training, simulation-based crisis preparation, intraoperative monitoring standards, device- and technique-specific safeguards, and ERAS-based perioperative protocols—were associated with improved safety. Despite these gains, substantial heterogeneity persists in complication definitions, follow-up intervals, coding standards, and case-mix adjustment across registries, contributing to under-reporting and limiting meaningful international benchmarking. Harmonised reporting frameworks, unified definitions, minimum dataset requirements, and integrated cross-disciplinary reporting structures are essential to improving surveillance, guiding training and credentialing, and strengthening global quality-improvement efforts in gynecologic endoscopy.
References
Fuentes MN, Rodríguez-Oliver A, Rilo JCN, Paredes AG, Romero MTA, Parra JF. Complications of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. JSLS. 2014;18(3):e2014-00058.
Shastri S, Singh A, Darawade S, Manwani S. Complications of gynaecologic laparoscopy: An audit. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7(12):4870–6.
Moores KL, Bentick B. Gynaecological laparoscopic injuries: a 10-year retrospective review at a District General Hospital NHS Trust. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13(2):125–30.
Behbehani S, Suarez-Salvador E, Buras M, Magtibay P, Magrina J. Mortality rates in benign laparoscopic and robotic gynecologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(3):603–12.
Hemdan M, Helaly M, Idris H, Alosta M. From Theatre to Intensive Care: A Narrative Review of Life-Threatening Complications in Gynaecological Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy. Cureus. 2025;17(10):e95649.
Giorgi M, Schettini G, La Banca L, Cannoni A, Ginetti A, Colombi I, et al. Prevention and Treatment of Intraoperative Complications During Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery: Practical Tips and Tricks—A Narrative Review. Adv Ther. 2025;42(5):2089–117.
Jansen FW, Vredevoogd CB, Van Ulzen K, Hermans JO, Trimbos JB, Trimbos-Kemper TC. Complications of hysteroscopy: a prospective, multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(2):266-70.
Putz A, Bohlin T, Rakovan M, Putz AM, De Wilde RL. European operative registry to avoid complications in operative gynecology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;35:113–23.
Pepin KJ, Cook EF, Cohen SL. Risk of complication at the time of laparoscopic hysterectomy: a prediction model built from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(4):555.e1-7.
Elahmedawy H, Snook NJ. Complications of operative hysteroscopy: an anaesthetist’s perspective. BJA Educ. 2021;21(7):240–2.
Worldwide AA. AAGL practice report: morcellation during uterine tissue extraction. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):517-30.
Zimmer M, Pomorski M, Kamiński P, Doniec J, Huras H, Sieroszewski P, et al. Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians Guidelines for the application of hysteroscopy in gynecology. Ginekol Pol. 2019;90(8):482-9.
Loddo A, Djokovic D, Drizi A, De Vree BP, Sedrati A, van Herendael BJ. Hysteroscopic myomectomy: the guidelines of the International Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy (ISGE). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;268:121-8.
Clark TJ, Antoun L, Sardo AD, Tanos V, Huirne J, Bousma EW, Smith-Walker T, et al. European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) Good Practice Recommendations on surgical techniques for Removal of Fibroids: Part 2 Hysteroscopic Myomectomy. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2024;16(4):383-97.
Capozzi VA, De Finis A, Scarpelli E, Gallinelli A, Monfardini L, Cianci S, et al. Infectious complications in laparoscopic gynecologic oncology surgery within an ERAS-Compliant setting. J Pers Med. 2024;14(2):147.
Gupta N, Gupta A. Complications during hysteroscopy for gynecological procedures: prevention is better than cure!. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019;73(1):79–80.
Jeong N, Cho A, Koo YJ, Ahn JW, Park H, Lee ES, et al. Clinical practice in office hysteroscopy. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2025;68(3):175-85.
Lach A, Wilczak M, Malinger A, Nowak A, Piekarski P, Mruczyński A, et al. Assessment of Pain Complaints and Perioperative and Delayed Complications of Hysteroscopy Performed Under Local Anesthesia—A Retrospective Analysis. J Clin Med. 2025;14(16):5646.
Aas‐Eng MK, Langebrekke A, Hudelist G. Complications in operative hysteroscopy–is prevention possible?. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(12):1399-403.
Hota T, Abuzeid OM, Raju R, Holmes J, Hebert J, Abuzeid MI. Management of false passage complication during operative hysteroscopy. Middle East Fertility Society J. 2022;27(1):11.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
