Early Pregnancy LossNCT06309927
Operative Hysteroscopy Versus Suction Curettage for Surgical Termination of Early Pregnancy Loss (Miscarriage)
A study testing Operative hysteroscopy (by tissue removal device) and Suction curettage in people with Early Pregnancy Loss and Intrauterine Adhesion, run by Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center at 1 site in Israel.
Trial summary
Non-blinded prospective randomized study. 100 women diagnosed with early pregnancy loss up to 10 gestational weeks who opted for surgical management (after being offered the options of conservative management and medical treatment) will be recruited. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 45 years, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Early Pregnancy Loss, Intrauterine Adhesion
- What is being tested?
- Operative hysteroscopy (by tissue removal device) and Suction curettage
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIsrael
- Study dates
- 1 Apr 2024to Feb 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 45 years
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Early pregnancy loss (miscarriage) up to 10 gestational weeks
- Able to give informed consent, and read/write in Hebrew
Who cannot join
- Incomplete abortion presenting as heavy vaginal bleeding and dilated cervix
- Signs of infection and/or suspicion of septic abortion
- Previous diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies - septate, bicornuate, unicornuate or didelphi uterus
- Previous medical or surgical treatment in the current pregnancy
- Previous diagnosis or past surgery for intrauterine adhesions
- History of 2 or more prvious miscarriages
- History of 2 or more cesarean sections
- History of abdominal, vaginal or hysteroscopic myomectomy
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Non-blinded prospective randomized study. 100 women diagnosed with early pregnancy loss up to 10 gestational weeks who opted for surgical management (after being offered the options of conservative management and medical treatment) will be recruited.
Qualifying patients will sign an informed consent form and will be randomly assigned to the two arms of the study:
Read more
- Surgical uterine evacuation by the traditional ultrasound-guided suction curettage (control group)
- Surgical uterine evacuation by operative hysteroscopy using a tissue removal device (study group).
The surgical procedure will be determined randomly by computer generated allocation.
All surgical procedures will be performed under general anesthesia in an outpatient surgical suite. The operative time, operative blood loss and intraoperative complications will be recorded by the research team.
Following the surgical procedure, the patients will be monitored and discharged home as per our department's day-surgery protocol. Immediate post-operative complications will be recorded until discharge.
One week after the procedure, a telephone interview will be conducted to assess any procedure-related complications.
A diagnostic hysteroscopy without anesthesia will be scheduled 6 weeks postoperatively to assess for retained products of conception and for intrauterine adhesions. The diagnostic hysteroscopy will be performed by a practitioner who will be blinded to the type of surgery performed.
6 months after the procedure, a telephone questionnaire will be conducted to assess for subsequent pregnancies.
Read the detailed description
Early pregnancy loss occurs in ~ 15% of all pregnancies, while 10% of women have experienced at least one pregnancy loss. The therapeutic options that are available in these cases include surgical termination of pregnancy by suction curettage, medical treatment with Misoprostol, and conservative management. The surgical termination of pregnancy allows for relatively quick termination of the pregnancy, and prevention of heavy vaginal bleeding requiring urgent curettage. However, although this is a common and relatively safe procedure, it is associated with risks such as infection, residual trophoblastic tissue or retained products of conception (RPOC), bleeding and uterine perforation. In the long term, there is a risk of intrauterine adhesions formation, which may cause infertility and in severe cases, Asherman's syndrome. It has been hypothesized that RPOC following suction curettage occur because it is a "blind" operation. Therefore, it is now common practice to use ultrasound imaging during and/or immediately after the procedure in order to verify that all the pregnancy contents have been removed. However, despite the use of ultrasound, RPOCs are diagnosed in 1% to 10% of these procedures. Intrauterine adhesions following suction curettage are another significant risk of these procedures. In a study by Hooker et al., intrauterine adhesions were found in approximately 20% of suction curettage cases, while in women with repeated miscarriages the risk of intrauterine adhesions was even higher. Intrauterine adhesions are of critical importance in women of childbearing age, as they may cause infertility, menstrual disorders, and recurrent miscarriages. Therefore, preventing adhesions or reducing the rate of adhesions after surgical emptying of the uterine cavity is an issue of utmost importance in women of childbearing age. Thus, in recent years, several studies have investigated the use of operative hysteroscopy for surgical evacuation of early pregnancy loss. Hysteroscopy allows a visual assessment of the uterine cavity (as opposed to a "blind" suction curettage), possibly reducing the rates of RPOC. RPOC. In addition, during hysteroscopy, the surgery is limited to the pregnancy implantation site, as opposed to the "global" suction curettage. This may allow for reducing the risk of postoperative intrauterine adhesions. These advantages of hysteroscopy compared to the blind suction curettage have been previously shown regarding a similar procedure, removal of RPOC by hysteroscopy compared to curettage, and nowadays it is indeed acceptable to remove RPOC primarily by hysteroscopy. Thus, it can be hypothesized that operative hysteroscopy for the management of early pregnancy loss compared with suction curettage may be associated with reduced rates of RPOC and postoperative intrauterine adhesions. On the other hand, operative hysteroscopy does have some disadvantages compared with suction curettage - it requires expensive equipment, a slightly longer operative time, and skilled surgeons. To date, few studies (mainly case series or small cohort studies) have been carried out regarding the use of hysteroscopy for surgical evacuation of early pregnancy loss. These studies found that it is an effective (feasible) and safe operation. Weinberg et al. used the hysteroscopic tissue removal device for surgical evacuation of early pregnancy loss up to 10th weeks in 10 patients. The procedure could be completed in 8 patients, and there were no significant complications. Bar-on et al. bipolar loop resectoscope in 15 women with early pregnancy loss up to 12 weeks, without short term complications. More recently, a multicenter comparative prospective study from France was published by Huchon et al. In this study, no differences were found in the rate of subsequent pregnancies. However, this study included patients who were not candidates for hysteroscopy (such as patients admitted incomplete abortion). To conclude, further comparative studies are needed to determine the benefits of operative hysteroscopy in patients with early pregnancy loss. In the present study, the investigators will perform a prospective comparison between surgical evacuation of early pregnancy loss by surgical hysteroscopy using the tissue removal device method versus the traditional suction curettage. The investigators will evaluate both the feasibility and safety (both short and long term) of the procedures, including an assessment of postoperative intrauterine adhesions.
- Conditions
- Early Pregnancy Loss, Intrauterine Adhesion
- Being tested
- Operative hysteroscopy (by tissue removal device), Suction curettage
- Keywords
- hysteroscopy, curettage, early pregnancy loss, tissue removal device
- Medical subject headings
- Abortion, Spontaneous, Gynatresia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Operative hysteroscopy (by tissue removal device)Procedure or surgery
Surgical evacuation of the uterine cavity using the Truclear Mini-Elite hysteroscopic tissue removal device
Suction curettageProcedure or surgery
Surgical evacuation of the uterine cavity with electrical vacuum suction curette
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Operative hysteroscopy | Experimental | Surgical evacuation of the uterine cavity by operative hysteroscopy (tissue removal device, Truclear Mini-Elite) Receives: Procedure: Operative hysteroscopy (by tissue removal device) |
| Suction curettage | Active comparator | Surgical evacuation of the uterine cavity by ultrasound guided suction curettage Receives: Procedure: Suction curettage |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Operative complications
Short term surgical complications including estimated blood loss > 500 ml, fluid deficit > 2500 ml, uterine perforation, re-admission, fever
Measured: 1 week
Intrauterine adhesions
Assessment of intrauterine adhesions by diagnostic office hysteroscopy
Measured: 6 weeks
Subsequent fertility
Rates of subsequent pregnancy
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Conversion from operative hysteroscopy to suction curettage
Inability to complete uterine evacuation by operative hysteroscopy
Measured: 1 day
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Mar 2024
- Study start1 Apr 2024
- Primary completion30 Mar 2025
- Study completionFeb 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Early Pregnancy LossStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Noam Smorgick, Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center
- Investigators
- Noam Smorgick, MD, Principal investigator, Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06309927
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 0025-24-ASF
- Status last verified
- Jan 2026
- First submitted
- 7 Mar 2024
- Last updated
- 27 Jan 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
1. Quenby S, Gallos ID, Dhillon-Smith RK, Podesek M, Stephenson MD, Fisher J, Brosens JJ, Brewin J, Ramhorst R, Lucas ES, McCoy RC, Anderson R, Daher S, Regan L, Al-Memar M, Bourne T, MacIntyre DA, Rai R, Christiansen OB, Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Odendaal J, Devall AJ, Bennett PR, Petrou S, Coomarasamy A. Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss. Lancet. 2021;397:1658-1667. 2. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 200 Summary: Early Pregnancy Loss. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:1311-1313. 3. Shaker M, Smith A. First Trimester Miscarriage. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2022;49:623-635. 4. Upadhyay UD, Desai S, Zlidar V, Weitz TA, Grossman D, Anderson P, Taylor D. Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:175-183. 5. Paul ME, Mitchell CM, Rogers AJ, Fox MC, Lackie EG. Early surgical abortion: efficacy and safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:407-11. 6. Hooker A, Fraenk D, Brölmann H, Huirne J. Prevalence of intrauterine adhesions after termination of pregnancy: a systematic review. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21:329-35. 7. Yu D, Wong YM, Cheong Y, Xia E, Li TC. Asherman syndrome--one century later. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:759-79. 8. Catena U, D'Ippolito S, Campolo F, Dinoi G, Lanzone A, Scambia G. Hysteroembryoscopy and hysteroscopic uterine evacuation of early pregnancy loss: A feasible procedure in selected cases. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2022;14:193-197. 9. Young S, Miller CE. Hysteroscopic resection for management of early pregnancy loss: a case report and literature review. F S Rep. 2022;3:163-167. 10. Smorgick N, Barel O, Fuchs N, Ben-Ami I, Pansky M, Vaknin Z. Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: meta-analysis and literature review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;173:19-22. 11. Barel O, Krakov A, Pansky M, Vaknin Z, Halperin R, Smorgick N. Intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopic treatment for retained products of conception: what are the risk factors? Fertil Steril. 2015;103:775-9. 12. Weinberg S, Pansky M, Burshtein I, Beller U, Goldstein H, Barel O. A Pilot Study of Guided Conservative Hysteroscopic Evacuation of Early Miscarriage. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28:1860-1867. 13. Bar-On S, Berkovitz Shperling R, Cohen A, Akdam A, Michaan N, Levin I, Rattan G, Tzur Y. Primary Resectoscopic Treatment of First-Trimester Miscarriage. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2023:102327. 14. Huchon C, Drioueche H, Koskas M, Agostini A, Bauville E, Bourdel N, Fernandez H, Fritel X, Graesslin O, Legendre G, Lucot JP, Panel P, Raiffort C, Giraudet G, Bussières L, Fauconnier A. Operative Hysteroscopy vs Vacuum Aspiration for Incomplete Spontaneous Abortion: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2023;329:1197-1205.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Jan 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Operative Hysteroscopy Versus Suction Curettage for Surgical Termination of Early Pregnancy Loss (Miscarriage)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06309927
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 0025-24-ASF
- Conditions
- Early Pregnancy Loss, Intrauterine Adhesion
- Keywords
- hysteroscopy, curettage, early pregnancy loss, tissue removal device
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Assaf-Harofeh Medical CenterOther government
- Study start
- 1 Apr 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Mar 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- Feb 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 Mar 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Non-blinded prospective randomized study. 100 women diagnosed with early pregnancy loss up to 10 gestational weeks who opted for surgical management (after being offered the options of conservative management and medical treatment) will be recruited.
Qualifying patients will sign an informed consent form and will be randomly assigned to the two arms of the study:
- Surgical uterine evacuation by the traditional ultrasound-guided suction curettage (control group)
- Surgical uterine evacuation by operative hysteroscopy using a tissue removal device (study group).
The surgical procedure will be determined randomly by computer generated allocation.
All surgical procedures will be performed under general anesthesia in an outpatient surgical suite. The operative time, operative blood loss and intraoperative complications will be recorded by the research team.
Following the surgical procedure, the patients will be monitored and discharged home as per our department's day-surgery protocol. Immediate post-operative complications will be recorded until discharge.
One week after the procedure, a telephone interview will be conducted to assess any procedure-related complications.
A diagnostic hysteroscopy without anesthesia will be scheduled 6 weeks postoperatively to assess for retained products of conception and for intrauterine adhesions. The diagnostic hysteroscopy will be performed by a practitioner who will be blinded to the type of surgery performed.
6 months after the procedure, a telephone questionnaire will be conducted to assess for subsequent pregnancies.
Detailed description
Early pregnancy loss occurs in ~ 15% of all pregnancies, while 10% of women have experienced at least one pregnancy loss. The therapeutic options that are available in these cases include surgical termination of pregnancy by suction curettage, medical treatment with Misoprostol, and conservative management. The surgical termination of pregnancy allows for relatively quick termination of the pregnancy, and prevention of heavy vaginal bleeding requiring urgent curettage. However, although this is a common and relatively safe procedure, it is associated with risks such as infection, residual trophoblastic tissue or retained products of conception (RPOC), bleeding and uterine perforation. In the long term, there is a risk of intrauterine adhesions formation, which may cause infertility and in severe cases, Asherman's syndrome. It has been hypothesized that RPOC following suction curettage occur because it is a "blind" operation. Therefore, it is now common practice to use ultrasound imaging during and/or immediately after the procedure in order to verify that all the pregnancy contents have been removed. However, despite the use of ultrasound, RPOCs are diagnosed in 1% to 10% of these procedures. Intrauterine adhesions following suction curettage are another significant risk of these procedures. In a study by Hooker et al., intrauterine adhesions were found in approximately 20% of suction curettage cases, while in women with repeated miscarriages the risk of intrauterine adhesions was even higher. Intrauterine adhesions are of critical importance in women of childbearing age, as they may cause infertility, menstrual disorders, and recurrent miscarriages. Therefore, preventing adhesions or reducing the rate of adhesions after surgical emptying of the uterine cavity is an issue of utmost importance in women of childbearing age. Thus, in recent years, several studies have investigated the use of operative hysteroscopy for surgical evacuation of early pregnancy loss. Hysteroscopy allows a visual assessment of the uterine cavity (as opposed to a "blind" suction curettage), possibly reducing the rates of RPOC. RPOC. In addition, during hysteroscopy, the surgery is limited to the pregnancy implantation site, as opposed to the "global" suction curettage. This may allow for reducing the risk of postoperative intrauterine adhesions. These advantages of hysteroscopy compared to the blind suction curettage have been previously shown regarding a similar procedure, removal of RPOC by hysteroscopy compared to curettage, and nowadays it is indeed acceptable to remove RPOC primarily by hysteroscopy. Thus, it can be hypothesized that operative hysteroscopy for the management of early pregnancy loss compared with suction curettage may be associated with reduced rates of RPOC and postoperative intrauterine adhesions. On the other hand, operative hysteroscopy does have some disadvantages compared with suction curettage - it requires expensive equipment, a slightly longer operative time, and skilled surgeons. To date, few studies (mainly case series or small cohort studies) have been carried out regarding the use of hysteroscopy for surgical evacuation of early pregnancy loss. These studies found that it is an effective (feasible) and safe operation. Weinberg et al. used the hysteroscopic tissue removal device for surgical evacuation of early pregnancy loss up to 10th weeks in 10 patients. The procedure could be completed in 8 patients, and there were no significant complications. Bar-on et al. bipolar loop resectoscope in 15 women with early pregnancy loss up to 12 weeks, without short term complications. More recently, a multicenter comparative prospective study from France was published by Huchon et al. In this study, no differences were found in the rate of subsequent pregnancies. However, this study included patients who were not candidates for hysteroscopy (such as patients admitted incomplete abortion). To conclude, further comparative studies are needed to determine the benefits of operative hysteroscopy in patients with early pregnancy loss. In the present study, the investigators will perform a prospective comparison between surgical evacuation of early pregnancy loss by surgical hysteroscopy using the tissue removal device method versus the traditional suction curettage. The investigators will evaluate both the feasibility and safety (both short and long term) of the procedures, including an assessment of postoperative intrauterine adhesions.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Operative hysteroscopy | Experimental | Procedure: Operative hysteroscopy (by tissue removal device)Surgical evacuation of the uterine cavity by operative hysteroscopy (tissue removal device, Truclear Mini-Elite) |
| Suction curettage | Active comparator | Procedure: Suction curettageSurgical evacuation of the uterine cavity by ultrasound guided suction curettage |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 45 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Early pregnancy loss (miscarriage) up to 10 gestational weeks
- Able to give informed consent, and read/write in Hebrew
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Incomplete abortion presenting as heavy vaginal bleeding and dilated cervix
- Signs of infection and/or suspicion of septic abortion
- Previous diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies - septate, bicornuate, unicornuate or didelphi uterus
- Previous medical or surgical treatment in the current pregnancy
- Previous diagnosis or past surgery for intrauterine adhesions
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Operative hysteroscopy (by tissue removal device)Surgical evacuation of the uterine cavity using the Truclear Mini-Elite hysteroscopic tissue removal device | Procedure or surgery | Operative hysteroscopy |
| Suction curettageSurgical evacuation of the uterine cavity with electrical vacuum suction curette | Procedure or surgery | Suction curettage |
Primary outcome
Operative complications
Time frame: 1 week
Short term surgical complications including estimated blood loss > 500 ml, fluid deficit > 2500 ml, uterine perforation, re-admission, fever
Intrauterine adhesions
Time frame: 6 weeks
Assessment of intrauterine adhesions by diagnostic office hysteroscopy
Subsequent fertility
Time frame: 6 months
Rates of subsequent pregnancy
1 secondary outcome
Conversion from operative hysteroscopy to suction curettage
Time frame: 1 day
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Jan 2026.
- Background1. Quenby S, Gallos ID, Dhillon-Smith RK, Podesek M, Stephenson MD, Fisher J, Brosens JJ, Brewin J, Ramhorst R, Lucas ES, McCoy RC, Anderson R, Daher S, Regan L, Al-Memar M, Bourne T, MacIntyre DA, Rai R, Christiansen OB, Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Odendaal J, Devall AJ, Bennett PR, Petrou S, Coomarasamy A. Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss. Lancet. 2021;397:1658-1667. 2. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 200 Summary: Early Pregnancy Loss. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:1311-1313. 3. Shaker M, Smith A. First Trimester Miscarriage. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2022;49:623-635. 4. Upadhyay UD, Desai S, Zlidar V, Weitz TA, Grossman D, Anderson P, Taylor D. Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:175-183. 5. Paul ME, Mitchell CM, Rogers AJ, Fox MC, Lackie EG. Early surgical abortion: efficacy and safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:407-11. 6. Hooker A, Fraenk D, Brölmann H, Huirne J. Prevalence of intrauterine adhesions after termination of pregnancy: a systematic review. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21:329-35. 7. Yu D, Wong YM, Cheong Y, Xia E, Li TC. Asherman syndrome--one century later. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:759-79. 8. Catena U, D'Ippolito S, Campolo F, Dinoi G, Lanzone A, Scambia G. Hysteroembryoscopy and hysteroscopic uterine evacuation of early pregnancy loss: A feasible procedure in selected cases. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2022;14:193-197. 9. Young S, Miller CE. Hysteroscopic resection for management of early pregnancy loss: a case report and literature review. F S Rep. 2022;3:163-167. 10. Smorgick N, Barel O, Fuchs N, Ben-Ami I, Pansky M, Vaknin Z. Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: meta-analysis and literature review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;173:19-22. 11. Barel O, Krakov A, Pansky M, Vaknin Z, Halperin R, Smorgick N. Intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopic treatment for retained products of conception: what are the risk factors? Fertil Steril. 2015;103:775-9. 12. Weinberg S, Pansky M, Burshtein I, Beller U, Goldstein H, Barel O. A Pilot Study of Guided Conservative Hysteroscopic Evacuation of Early Miscarriage. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28:1860-1867. 13. Bar-On S, Berkovitz Shperling R, Cohen A, Akdam A, Michaan N, Levin I, Rattan G, Tzur Y. Primary Resectoscopic Treatment of First-Trimester Miscarriage. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2023:102327. 14. Huchon C, Drioueche H, Koskas M, Agostini A, Bauville E, Bourdel N, Fernandez H, Fritel X, Graesslin O, Legendre G, Lucot JP, Panel P, Raiffort C, Giraudet G, Bussières L, Fauconnier A. Operative Hysteroscopy vs Vacuum Aspiration for Incomplete Spontaneous Abortion: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2023;329:1197-1205.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Early Pregnancy Loss
Not yet recruiting
Virtual Reality for Pain and Anxiety During Surgical Uterine Evacuation After Early Pregnancy Loss
Early Pregnancy Loss, Procedural Pain
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Factors Influencing Fertility or Pregnancy Health
Menstrual Cycles, Conception
Not yet recruitingPhase 3
Efficacy of Progesterone and Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss
Pregnancy Loss, Pregnancy Loss, Early
RecruitingObservational study
Rare Disease Patient Registry & Natural History Study - Coordination of Rare Diseases at Sanford
Rare Disorders, Undiagnosed Disorders
RecruitingObservational study
Research on Equity in Abortion Care by TeleHealth
Abortion in First Trimester, Abortion Early
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Noam Smorgick, MD principal investigator
Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Operative hysteroscopy (by tissue removal device) and Suction curettage in people with Early Pregnancy Loss and Intrauterine Adhesion, run by Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center at 1 site in Israel.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Jan 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Israel. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Operative complications (time frame: 1 week). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06309927, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 27 Jan 2026.