Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007 Dec;16(10):1429-36.

Patient acceptability of manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early pregnancy loss.

Author information

  • 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA.



To compare the safety, efficacy, postprocedure quality of life, and acceptability of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) performed as an outpatient with electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) performed in a hospital in women experiencing a first-trimester miscarriage.


From a randomized multicenter trial comparing misoprostol with vacuum aspiration for first-trimester loss, data were extracted comparing the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of MVA in an office setting with local anesthesia with EVA in an operating room environment with spinal or general anesthesia or monitored anesthesia care (MAC).


One hundred fifty-seven women underwent EVA or MVA. Efficacy and safety were similar in both groups. Physical and emotional role functioning scores were better in patients undergoing MVA (p=0.01), and fewer patients undergoing MVA missed work or required help at home (p<0.01). However, pain severity scores were better in the EVA arm of the study (p=0.03). There was a trend toward fewer MVA patients recommending or using this procedure again.


In patients with early pregnancy loss, treatment with MVA as an outpatient with local anesthesia is an effective and safe alternative to EVA performed in a hospital with conscious sedation or spinal or general anesthesia. Treatment in the outpatient setting allows for a better physical and emotional quality of life postprocedure.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk