Abstract
Objectives
The present study compares MVA and EVA as the method for 1st trimester MTP in terms of effi7acy, blood loss, duration, acceptability and complications.
Method
The present study was conducted in the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Eden Hospital, Medical College, Kolkata. Medical College, Kolkata is also a Government of India recognized center for MVA training programme. A total number of 200 patients were studied; out of which 100 patients underwent MVA and remaining 100 EVA. Cases were compared with respect to age, parity, blood loss, time taken and complications.
Results
In the present study MVAwas effective in 98% and EVAin 97% cases as 2% and 3% respectively of the 2 groups required reevacuation for incompleteness. Thus the two procedures did not show much difference as far as their effectiveness was concerned.
Conclusion
MVA has a safety and efficacy profile similar to that of EVA. Also, MVA is a simple, safe, effective procedure, portable and low cost technique. Hence, MVA is a promising method compared to EVA which can be practiced widely in rural areas where the access to medical facilities are limited, high tech equipments are not available, power supply erratic and maintenance of instruments not up to the mark. The judicious use of MVA comes with a promise to make early abortions safe and easily accessible to women of both rural and urban societies belonging to any socioeconomic strata.
Key words: Manual Vacuum Aspiration, Electrical vacuum aspiration, abortion
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (88.1 KB).
References
- 1.Safe Abortion: Technical & policy guidance for health system. Geneva.: WHO; 2003. pp. 10–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Goldberg A.B., Dean G., Kang M. - S., et al. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early first trimester abortion: A controlled study of complication rates. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2004;103:101–107. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000109147.23082.25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Westfall J.M., Sophocles A., Buggraf H., et al. Manual vacuum aspiration for first trimester abortion. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:559–562. doi: 10.1001/archfami.7.6.559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hemlin J., Moller B. Manual vacuum aspiration, a safe and effective alternative in early pregnancy termination. ACTA Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80:563–567. doi: 10.1080/j.1600-0412.2001.080006563.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bird S.T., Harvey S.M., Nichols M., et al. Comparing the acceptability of manual vacuum aspiration & electrical vacuum aspiration as methods of early abortion. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2001;56:124–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Goldberg A.B., Dean G., Kang M. - S., et al. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early first trimester abortion: Acontrolled study of complication rates. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2004;103:101–107. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000109147.23082.25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Paul M. E., et al. Early surgical abortion: Efficacy and safety. Am J obstetrics and gynecology. 2002;187:407–411. doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.123898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hemlin J., Moller B. Manual vacuum aspiration, a safe and effective alternative in early pregnancy termination. ACTA Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80(6):563–567. doi: 10.1080/j.1600-0412.2001.080006563.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]