|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To evaluate the safety of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA). Methods: We searched medical databases including CBMdisc (1978-2014), CNKI (1979-2014), Wanfang Database (1982-2014), VIP Database (1989-2014), PubMed (1966-2014), Cochrane Library by computer and manually searched other related journals to screen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved in the comparison of MVA and Electric vacuum aspiration (EVA). The quality of included trials was assessed. RevMan5.0 software was used for meta-analysis. Results: Twelve trials were included, in which 3 RCTs were graded B and 9 were graded C. The blood loss of MVA was lower than that of electric vacuum aspiration (EVA), showing statistically significant difference ［WMD (95% CI) value was -8.01 (-8.86, -7.17)］. There were no significant differences in pain perception degree between MVA and EVA in two subgroups with different anesthesia methods ［RR (95% CI) values were 1.78 (0.07, 42.83), 0.28 (0.02, 5.19), respectively］. The pain perception of participants in MVA group when dilating cervix before the operation did not vary with the level of the doctor, while they felt less pain when operated by the faculty doctor than the resident doctor in the EVA group. There was no significant difference between MVA and EVA in terms of the operation time ［WMD (95% CI) value was -1.34 (-2.83, 0.15)］. The incidence of artificial abortion syndrome of MVA was lower than that of EVA, showing a statistically significant difference ［RR (95% CI) value was 0.06 (0.01, 0.38)］. The incidence of adverse reactions of MVA and EVA was low and there was no significant difference between two groups. Conclusion: Based on the current best evidence, MVA has the similar safety to EVA , and what is more MVA could reduce blood loss and the incidence of artificial abortion syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
