Skip to main content

Table 4 The details of women after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis

From: Yangmo decoction versus hyaluronic acid gel in women with intrauterine re-adhesion after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis: a retrospective efficacy and safety analysis

Characters

Cohorts

Comparisons between HA and EP

YD

HA

EP

Secondary re-adhesion preventions

Yangmo decoction

Intrauterine hyaluronic acid gel

Comparisons between YD and HA

None

Comparisons between YD and EP

Numbers of women

105

125

p-value

Cl

165

p-value

Cl

p-value

Cl

Successful pregnancies

55(52)

45(36)

0.0161

1.080 to 1.893

35(21)

<0.0001

1.650 to 2.933

0.0077

1.140 to 1.913

Numbers of women who develop re-adhesion

15(14)

40(32)

0.0019

0.2794 to 0.7241

58(35)

0.0001

0.2794 to 0.7241

0.6171

N/A

Postoperative AFS score of women who develop re-adhesion

2(2–1)

4(4–3)

<0.001 (Krushal-Wallis’ test)

N/A

4(4–4)

<0.001 (Krushal-Wallis’ test)

N/A

<0.05 (Krushal-Wallis’ test)

N/A

Successful pregnancies after re-adhesion

10(67)

0(0)

<0.0001 (Fisher exact test)

1.990 to 2.695

0(0)

<0.0001 (Fisher exact test)

5.433 to 29.222

N/A

N/A

Endometrial thickness (mm)

3(3.4–2.8)

3.45(4.1–2.85)

>0.05 (one-way ANOVA/ Tukey test)

N/A

3.05(3.5–2.8)

>0.05 (one-way ANOVA/ Tukey test)

N/A

>0.05 (one-way ANOVA/ Tukey test)

N/A

  1. Variables are depicted in frequency (percentages) or median (Q3–Q1)
  2. AFS American Fertility Society classification of intrauterine adhesions
  3. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant
  4. Cl Confidence Interval, N/A Not applicable