Hubbry Logo
Vacuum aspirationVacuum aspirationMain
Open search
Vacuum aspiration
Community hub
Vacuum aspiration
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Vacuum aspiration
Vacuum aspiration
Vacuum aspiration
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Vacuum aspiration
Background
Abortion typeSurgical
First useChina 1958 and
UK 1967[1]
Gestation3-13+6 weeks
Usage
Figures are combined usage of MVA and EVA.
Sweden42.7% (2005)
UK: Eng. & Wales64% (2006)
United States59.9% (2016)
Infobox references
Single-use double-valve manual vacuum aspirator

Vacuum or suction aspiration is a procedure that uses a vacuum source to remove an embryo or fetus through the cervix. The procedure is performed to induce abortion, as a treatment for incomplete spontaneous abortion (otherwise commonly known as miscarriage) or retained fetal and placental tissue, or to obtain a sample of uterine lining (endometrial biopsy).[2][3] It is generally safe, and serious complications rarely occur.[4]

Some sources may use the terms dilation and evacuation[5] or "suction" dilation and curettage[6] to refer to vacuum aspiration, although those terms are normally used to refer to distinctly different procedures.

History

[edit]

Vacuuming as a means of removing the uterine contents, rather than the previous use of a hard metal curette, was pioneered in 1958 by Drs Wu Yuantai and Wu Xianzhen in China,[7] but their paper was only translated into English on the fiftieth anniversary of the study which would ultimately pave the way for this procedure becoming exceedingly common. It is now known to be one of the safest obstetric procedures, and has saved countless women's lives.[1]

In Canada, the method was pioneered and improved on by Henry Morgentaler, achieving a complication rate of 0.48% and no deaths in over 5,000 cases.[8] He was the first doctor in North America to use the technique, which he then trained other doctors to use.[9]

Dorothea Kerslake introduced the method into the United Kingdom in 1967 and published a study in the United States that further spread the technique.[1][10]

Harvey Karman in the United States refined the technique in the early 1970s with the development of the Karman cannula, a soft, flexible cannula that avoided the need for initial cervical dilatation and so reduced the risks of puncturing the uterus.[1]

Clinical uses

[edit]

Vacuum aspiration may be used as a method of induced abortion as well as a therapeutic procedure after spontaneous abortion. The procedure can also aid in regulation of the menstrual cycle and to obtain a sample for endometrial biopsy.[11] A study found use of Karman vacuum aspiration to be a safer option for endometrial biopsy when compared to the alternatives such as conventional endometrial curettage.[3] It is also used to terminate molar pregnancy.[12]

When used as a spontaneous abortion management or as a therapeutic abortion method, vacuum aspiration may be used alone or with cervical dilation anytime in the first trimester (up to 12 weeks gestational age). For more advanced pregnancies, vacuum aspiration may be used as one step in a dilation and evacuation procedure.[13] Vacuum aspiration is the surgical procedure used for almost all first-trimester abortions in many countries, if medication abortion is not a viable option .[11]

Procedure

[edit]
A diagram of a vacuum aspiration abortion procedure at eight weeks gestation.
1: Amniotic sac
2: Embryo
3: Uterine lining
4: Speculum
5: Vacurette
6: Attached to a suction pump
Figure I is before aspiration of amniotic sac and embryo, and Figure II is after aspiration with the instrument still inside the uterus.

Vacuum aspiration is an outpatient procedure that generally involves a clinic visit of several hours.[14] The procedure itself typically takes less than 15 minutes.[15][16] Depending on the state of residence and local laws, two appointments and various other proceedings may be required if the vacuum aspiration is being used for therapeutic abortion.[17] There are two options for the source of suction in the use of these procedures. Suction can be created with either an electric pump (electric vacuum aspiration or EVA) or a manual pump (manual vacuum aspiration or MVA). A hand-held 25cc or 50cc syringe can function as a manual pump.[18] Both of these methods can create the same level of suction, and therefore are considered equivalent in terms of efficacy of treatment and safety.[19][20] The difference in use primarily comes down to provider preference.

The clinician places a speculum into the vagina in order to visualize the cervix. The cervix is cleansed, then a local anesthetic (usually lidocaine) is injected in the form of a para-cervical block or intra-cervical injection into the cervix.[21] The clinician may use instruments called "dilators" in incrementally larger sizes to gently open the cervix, or medically induce cervical dilation with drugs or osmotic dilators administered before the procedure.[22][23] Finally, a sterile cannula is inserted into the uterus. The cannula may be attached via tubing to the pump if using an electric vacuum, or attached directly to a syringe if using a manual vacuum aspirator. The pump creates a vacuum and suction which empties uterine contents, which either enter a canister or the syringe.[15]

After a procedure for abortion or miscarriage treatment, the tissue removed from the uterus is examined for completeness to ensure that no products of conception are left behind.[15] Expected contents include the embryo or fetus, as well as the decidua, chorionic villi, amniotic fluid, amniotic membrane and other tissues. These are all tissues which are found in a normal pregnancy. In the case of a molar pregnancy, these components will not be found.[24]

Post-treatment care includes brief observation in a recovery area and a follow-up appointment approximately two weeks later. During these visits, it is possible that the provider may perform tests to check for infection, as retained tissue in the uterus can be a source of infection.[25]

Additional medications used in vacuum aspiration include NSAID analgesics[26][21] that may be started the day before the procedure, as well as misoprostol the day before for cervical ripening which makes dilation of the cervix easier to perform.[27] Procedural sedation and analgesia may be offered to the patient in order to avoid discomfort.

Advantages over sharp dilation and curettage

[edit]

Sharp dilation and curettage (D&C), also known as sharp curettage, was once the standard of care in situations requiring uterine evacuation. However, vacuum aspiration has a number of advantages over sharp D&C and has largely replaced D&C in many settings.[28] Manual vacuum aspiration has been found to have lower rates of incomplete evacuation and retained products of conception in the uterus.[29] Sharp curettage has also been associated with Asherman's Syndrome, whereas vacuum aspiration has not been found to have this longer term complication.[30] Overall, vacuum aspiration has been found to have lower rates of complications when compared to D&C.[19]

Vacuum aspiration may be used earlier in pregnancy when compared to sharp D&C. Manual vacuum aspiration is the only surgical abortion procedure available earlier than the sixth week of pregnancy.[15]

Vacuum aspiration, especially manual vacuum aspiration, is significantly cheaper than sharp D&C. The equipment needed for vacuum aspiration costs less than a set of surgical curettes. Additionally, sharp D&C is generally provided only by physicians, vacuum aspiration may be performed by advanced practice clinicians such as physician assistants and midwives, which greatly increases access to these services.[31]

Manual vacuum aspiration does not require electricity and so can be provided in locations that have unreliable electrical service or none at all. Manual vacuum aspiration also has the advantage of being quiet, without the louder noise of an electric vacuum pump, which can be stressful or bothersome to patients.[31]

Complications

[edit]

When used for pregnancy evacuation, vacuum aspiration is 98% effective in removing all uterine contents.[19] One of the main complications is retained products of conception which will usually require a second aspiration procedure. This is more common when the procedure is performed very early in pregnancy, before 6 weeks gestational age.[15]

Another complication is infection, usually caused by retained products of conception or introduction of vaginal flora (otherwise known as bacteria) into the uterus. The rate of infection is 0.5%.[15]

Other complications occur at a rate of less than 1 per 100 procedures and include excessive blood loss, creating a hole through the cervix or uterus[19] (perforation) that may cause injury to other internal organs. Blood clots can possibly form within the uterus and block outflow of bleeding from the uterus which can cause the uterus to be enlarged and tender.[32]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Vacuum aspiration

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Vacuum aspiration is a gynecological procedure that employs mechanical suction to evacuate the contents of the following , most commonly utilized for first-trimester induced or management of incomplete spontaneous . The technique, which typically lasts 5 to 10 minutes under , involves inserting a connected to either a manual or electric to aspirate embryonic or fetal tissue along with endometrial lining, minimizing trauma compared to earlier sharp methods. Developed in the mid-20th century, with key innovations like the flexible in the 1970s enabling safer outpatient application, vacuum aspiration—available in manual (MVA) and electric variants—has demonstrated high efficacy rates exceeding 98% for gestations up to 12 weeks, alongside low complication rates under 2% when performed by trained providers. Its adoption surged post-legalization of in various jurisdictions, supplanting due to reduced risks of , hemorrhage, and , though debates persist over provider training scopes and procedural accessibility amid regulatory variances.

Historical Development

Pre-Vacuum Techniques

Prior to the introduction of vacuum aspiration techniques in the mid-20th century, surgical uterine evacuation for early induced abortion or incomplete miscarriage primarily utilized dilation followed by sharp curettage (D&C). This method, established in clinical practice by the late 19th century, mechanically dilated the cervix with graduated metal dilators—such as Hegar or Pratt dilators—and then employed a sharp-edged curette to scrape and remove the endometrial contents, including fetal tissue and products of conception. The procedure often required general anesthesia due to the intense pain from cervical dilation and endometrial scraping, which risked significant trauma to uterine tissues. Sharp involved inserting the through the dilated into the , where it was rotated systematically against the uterine walls to dislodge and extract material via direct mechanical action. While capable of achieving evacuation, the technique frequently resulted in incomplete removal of tissue, leading to retained products that could cause hemorrhage or . Associated complications included from the rigid , excessive bleeding due to endometrial damage, postoperative rates elevated by tissue trauma, and intrauterine synechiae () from aggressive scraping, which could impair future fertility. Clinical data highlighted D&C's limitations relative to subsequent methods, with higher rates of procedural failure and repeat interventions compared to suction-based approaches; for instance, sharp curettage demonstrated lower complete evacuation rates than vacuum alternatives in comparative studies of first-trimester cases. These risks stemmed from the reliance on blind scraping rather than aspirative removal, often exacerbating hemorrhage and adhesion formation. The has since discouraged sharp D&C for first-trimester management due to these inferior safety and efficacy profiles. Such drawbacks underscored the need for innovations like aspiration, first reported in in 1958, which minimized mechanical injury through suction-mediated evacuation.

Introduction and Evolution of Vacuum Methods

Vacuum aspiration refers to a class of procedures employing negative pressure to evacuate uterine contents, primarily for inducing in early or managing incomplete by removing retained . This method utilizes a connected to a source—either electric or manual—to gently aspirate tissue, minimizing mechanical trauma compared to prior sharp curettage techniques. Introduced as a safer alternative, vacuum methods reduce risks of , infection, and by preserving endometrial integrity through rather than scraping. The technique's development began in amid policy shifts liberalizing access in 1957, with initial experiments yielding case series published in 1958 by physicians including Wu Yuantai, who demonstrated suction's efficacy for early procedures using rudimentary pumps. These efforts addressed high complication rates from (D&C), which dominated globally and involved risks from rigid instruments. By 1960, Soviet innovators E.I. Melks and L.V. Roze refined electric vacuum systems, integrating engineering for controlled aspiration, which facilitated broader clinical trials and reports of lower hemorrhage and infection compared to D&C. In the United States and Western contexts, adoption lagged until the 1960s, spurred by advocates like , who in 1961 devised manual aspiration (MVA) using a handheld and flexible , enabling portable, electricity-independent use in resource-limited settings. MVA's simplicity—achieving 97-99% success rates in first-trimester cases with complication rates under 2%—contrasted with electric 's reliance on powered equipment, though both supplanted D&C by the early post-legalization, as evidenced by U.S. data showing use rising to over 90% of procedures by 1975. Refinements included smaller cannulae diameters (4-8 mm) and pressures calibrated to 200-600 mmHg, optimizing tissue retrieval while averting excessive suction trauma.

Adoption and Refinements Post-1970s

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 1973, which legalized abortion nationwide, electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) rapidly became the dominant technique for first-trimester procedures, replacing (D&C). In 1965, approximately 71% of legal abortions in the United States were performed using D&C, a method prone to higher risks of hemorrhage and infection due to mechanical scraping of the uterine lining. By 1972, vacuum aspiration accounted for 72.6% of legal abortions, reflecting its advantages in efficiency, reduced tissue trauma, and lower complication rates, as demonstrated in clinical studies comparing to sharp curettage. This shift was facilitated by the availability of electric pumps providing consistent negative pressure of 200-300 mmHg, enabling complete evacuation in under 5 minutes for gestations up to 12 weeks. A significant refinement in the mid-1970s was the introduction of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA), which uses a handheld 50-60 ml connected to a flexible to generate without reliance on or large equipment. Developed as a portable alternative suitable for outpatient and low-resource settings, MVA was first implemented in 1973, allowing procedures with pressures up to 25 inches of mercury, comparable to EVA for early gestations. The technique incorporated the , a soft, flexible tube invented by in the early 1970s, which minimized uterine injury by avoiding sharp edges and enabling gentle aspiration of endometrial contents. The (WHO) played a pivotal role in global adoption, promoting vacuum aspiration—including MVA—as the preferred method for first-trimester abortion and incomplete management from the 1970s onward, citing its safety profile with complication rates under 2% in trained hands. WHO guidelines emphasized MVA's utility in developing regions, where it reduced the need for hospitalization and , with field trials in the 1970s-1980s showing success rates exceeding 98% for gestations under 12 weeks. Further refinements included standardized training protocols and smaller sizes (4-7 mm diameter) to accommodate minimal , decreasing and risks; by the 1980s, these adaptations supported over 90% of early surgical abortions worldwide via vacuum methods.

Technical Description

Procedure Mechanics

Vacuum aspiration employs generated by either manual or electric means to evacuate uterine contents via a passed through the dilated . The procedure relies on negative pressure to dislodge and remove endometrial lining, trophoblastic tissue, and fetal elements without extensive sharp . Cannula sizes range from 4 to 14 mm for manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) and up to 14–16 mm for electric vacuum aspiration (EVA), calibrated to —for instance, 6–7 mm for pregnancies under 7 weeks and 8–12 mm for 9–12 weeks. Preparation includes positioning the patient in dorsal lithotomy, antiseptic cleansing of the cervix, and administration of a paracervical block with 10–20 mL of 0.5–1.0% lidocaine injected at positions such as 2, 5, 7, and 10 o'clock. Cervical priming with misoprostol (400 μg vaginally 3–4 hours prior) or osmotic dilators (inserted 6–24 hours prior) softens and dilates the cervix, reducing the need for mechanical dilation in early gestations. Mechanical dilation proceeds with sequential Hegar dilators, beginning with the smallest that negotiates the internal os, while tenaculum forceps provide traction to align the endocervical canal and prevent uterine displacement. The is inserted gently to the fundus, retracted 1–2 cm to safeguard against , and connected to the apparatus. In MVA, a 50–60 mL hand-held aspirator is evacuated by withdrawal prior to attachment, with valves released to activate ; the rotates 180–360 degrees to methodically cover uterine walls, detaching the for emptying when filled with tissue. EVA utilizes an electric linked via wider tubing for sustained, adjustable , permitting uninterrupted evacuation through similar rotational movements. Evacuation concludes when aspirate shifts to pink, frothy fluid devoid of tissue, a gritty tactile feedback signals endometrial scraping, uterine contractions grip the , and cramping peaks. Aspirated contents undergo visual inspection for villi, , or fetal parts to affirm completeness, supplemented by bimanual of a contracted or if available. The process generally spans 5–10 minutes.

Equipment and Variations

Vacuum aspiration employs a connected to a source for suction-based evacuation of uterine contents. The core equipment consists of a cannula, typically ranging from 4 to 12 mm in outer diameter based on , inserted transcervically after dilation if required. Cannulae are available in flexible or rigid forms, with flexible variants like the favored for manual procedures due to reduced risk of tissue trauma compared to rigid metal types such as the Purandare cannula. No significant differences in safety outcomes, including cervical injury or rates, exist between flexible and rigid cannulae for first-trimester use. The procedure features two principal variations: manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) and electric vacuum aspiration (EVA). MVA utilizes a handheld aspirator syringe with a double-valve system to create negative pressure of approximately 500-700 mmHg, enabling portability and operation without electrical power. This system attaches directly to compatible cannulae from manufacturers like Ipas or MedGyn, supporting reuse after sterilization in resource-limited settings. EVA, in contrast, relies on an electric delivering adjustable levels up to 800 millibars, paired with a collection jar and tubing for higher-volume or later-gestation evacuations. Both methods achieve comparable efficacy for gestations up to 10-14 weeks, though EVA may require conversion to MVA in rare cases of insufficient . Additional equipment variations include cannula curvature (straight or banana-shaped) to facilitate uterine access and speculum-tenaculum setups for cervical stabilization, with MVA kits often designed for office-based simplicity over hospital-grade EVA systems. Studies confirm MVA's safety equivalence to EVA for early procedures, with potential advantages in reduced blood loss and due to operator-controlled .

Clinical Indications and Contraindications

Primary Uses in Induced Abortion

Vacuum aspiration constitutes the primary surgical method for induced abortion in the first trimester, applicable from about 6 weeks to 14 weeks of gestation, depending on the variant used. The procedure employs negative pressure via a cannula inserted transcervically to aspirate the products of conception, including the embryo, placenta, and decidual tissue, typically completing in 5 to 10 minutes under local or general anesthesia. Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA), utilizing a handheld to generate , is optimized for early gestations up to 10 weeks, enabling office-based interventions with comparable to electric methods and lower equipment costs. Electric vacuum aspiration (EVA), connected to an electrical pump for consistent negative pressure, extends reliable use to 10-14 weeks, where fetal and uterine tissue volumes increase, though procedure times remain similar to MVA in this range with low conversion rates to alternative methods. Complete abortion rates for vacuum aspiration exceed 97 percent in controlled settings, surpassing traditional sharp curettage due to reduced trauma from over instrumentation. In the United States, it accounts for the majority of surgical first-trimester procedures, aligning with 93 percent of all reported s occurring by 13 weeks. Guidelines from organizations like FIGO endorse vacuum aspiration over other techniques for induced management, citing its efficacy and safety profile when contraindications such as active or are absent.

Applications in Miscarriage Management


Vacuum aspiration serves as a surgical option for managing miscarriage, particularly in cases of incomplete miscarriage or retained products of conception (RPOC) following early pregnancy loss, typically up to 12-14 weeks gestation. The procedure involves gentle suction to evacuate uterine contents, providing a definitive intervention when expectant or medical management fails or is unsuitable. Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA), often performed in outpatient settings under local anesthesia, is preferred for its simplicity and reduced need for general anesthesia compared to electric vacuum aspiration. Clinical guidelines from organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend vacuum aspiration for women preferring rapid resolution of symptoms like bleeding and pain, or when confirms significant retained tissue. Success rates for complete evacuation exceed 99% in office-based MVA procedures, based on retrospective analyses of over 1,600 cases. Studies comparing MVA to expectant management demonstrate higher efficacy, with MVA achieving complete expulsion in nearly all cases versus variable rates (47-81%) for . This approach minimizes prolonged bleeding and infection risks associated with incomplete evacuation. Complications from vacuum aspiration in miscarriage management are infrequent and comparable to those in elective procedures, with major events like hemorrhage requiring transfusion or occurring in ≤0.1% of first-trimester cases. Minor risks include cramping, spotting, and , typically managed with antibiotics or analgesics; post-procedure rates remain low when performed under sterile conditions. Patient selection emphasizes hemodynamic stability and absence of active , ensuring safety across diverse settings, including resource-limited environments where MVA kits enable portability. Follow-up verifies completeness, with re-intervention needed in under 1% of cases.

Patient Selection and Exclusions

Patient selection for vacuum aspiration prioritizes individuals with confirmed intrauterine pregnancy in the first trimester, typically gestational ages of 6 to 12 weeks from last menstrual period (LMP), where the procedure effectively evacuates uterine contents for either induced termination or management of incomplete or missed abortion. Selection requires ultrasound confirmation of gestational age and location to exclude ectopic pregnancy, along with clinical stability including normal vital signs and absence of heavy bleeding or signs of infection. Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) is particularly suited for outpatient settings in stable patients up to 10-13 weeks LMP, while electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) may extend to 14 weeks in facility-based care. Absolute exclusions include desire to preserve a viable intrauterine , suspected or confirmed , and untreated acute pelvic infections such as or , as these increase risks of or incomplete evacuation. Relative contraindications encompass uncorrected coagulopathies, severe (hemoglobin <80 g/L), hemodynamic instability, uterine anomalies distorting the cavity, and multiple gestations, which may necessitate alternative methods like dilation and evacuation. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension (systolic >180 mmHg or symptomatic) or active heavy are also excluded to mitigate procedural hemorrhage risks. beyond 14 weeks generally precludes vacuum aspiration due to reduced efficacy and higher complication rates, shifting to second-trimester techniques. Pre-procedure evaluation includes laboratory assessment for , infection markers, and coagulation status, alongside confirming voluntary decision without . In miscarriage management, selection favors retained products confirmed by over expectant approaches in cases of preference for rapid resolution or ongoing symptoms. These criteria, drawn from clinical protocols, emphasize minimizing maternal morbidity while ensuring procedural success rates exceeding 95% in appropriately selected cases.

Risks, Complications, and Outcomes

Immediate Physical Risks

Immediate physical risks of vacuum aspiration include , hemorrhage, cervical injury, incomplete evacuation, and infection. , which involves accidental puncture of the uterine wall during , occurs at a rate of 0.01% to 0.3% (1 to 3 per 1,000 procedures). This complication may damage adjacent structures such as the bowel, , or blood vessels, potentially requiring surgical repair or for management. Hemorrhage, characterized by excessive during or shortly after the procedure, affects 0% to 4.7% of cases without transfusion needs, while severe cases requiring transfusion occur in ≤0.1% of procedures. Cervical laceration or tear from dilatation or insertion is another acute risk, contributing to the overall early complication rate of 0.01% to 1.16% for hemorrhage, , and cervical injury combined. Incomplete evacuation, leading to retained , necessitates repeat aspiration in ≤3% to 5% of cases and may present with ongoing bleeding or cramping. , typically endometritis or , arises in 0% to 2% of procedures, with prophylactic antibiotics reducing incidence. Hospitalization due to these immediate complications is required in ≤0.5% of cases. Overall, major complications demanding intervention remain rare, at ≤0.1%.

Long-Term Maternal Health Effects

A of studies on prior surgical uterine evacuation, including vacuum aspiration, has found an association with increased risk, though findings vary due to methodological differences such as factors like age and prior conditions. Multiple cohort studies, including a Danish national register analysis, indicate that surgical first-trimester abortions elevate the risk of subsequent spontaneous by approximately 20-30% compared to women without such history, with a dose-response pattern where multiple procedures amplify the to 1.9 or higher. This risk is attributed to potential cervical trauma or subclinical disrupting cervical integrity or uterine environment, as evidenced by meta-analyses pooling data from over 100 studies showing consistent elevation in preterm delivery rates post-aspiration procedures. Mental health outcomes post-vacuum aspiration remain debated, with some large-scale studies reporting no overall increase in disorders like depression or anxiety after adjustment for pre-existing vulnerabilities, while others, including a of observational data, estimate an 81% heightened risk of problems, particularly among women with prior trauma or . Longitudinal evidence from registries links induced to elevated long-term rates of PTSD and substance use disorders in subsets of women, with relative risks up to 2.0 in those denying emotional relief post-procedure, contrasting with findings that attribute issues more to in vulnerable populations than causation. Additional reproductive sequelae include a modest 30% excess risk of in subsequent gestations following one aspiration abortion, potentially from tubal or endometrial scarring, though not all reviews confirm after controlling for and infections. Risks of previa or abruption appear in select cohorts but lack robust meta-analytic support specific to vacuum methods, with overall evidence suggesting minimal impact on live birth rates in women pursuing future pregnancies, barring repeated interventions. No consistent causal links to or chronic have been established in high-quality prospective studies, though earlier observational data prompted scrutiny now largely resolved by confounding adjustments.

Comparative Safety Data

Vacuum aspiration demonstrates lower complication rates compared to sharp (D&C), with studies indicating manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) as equally effective for early pregnancy evacuation but with reduced risks of , , and excessive . A comparative analysis found MVA associated with fewer procedural failures and complications in first-trimester miscarriages, attributing this to gentler suction mechanics that minimize endometrial trauma relative to sharp instrumentation in D&C. Overall, first-trimester vacuum procedures report major complication rates below 0.2%, contrasting with higher injury risks in D&C after 9 weeks' gestation. In comparison to medication abortion, vacuum aspiration exhibits higher efficacy and lower rates of incomplete evacuation requiring re-intervention, with success rates exceeding 98% versus approximately 92-95% for medical methods in the first trimester. Surgical vacuum procedures also correlate with fewer serious adverse events, such as prolonged heavy bleeding or infection necessitating hospitalization, though medical abortion may involve more transient side effects like cramping and nausea without invasive risks. Peer-reviewed data from randomized trials confirm vacuum aspiration's complication rate at around 2% for misoprostol-pretreated cases, lower than the 3% observed in placebo-controlled medical cohorts, underscoring its profile for outpatient settings. Relative to , vacuum aspiration carries substantially lower maternal mortality and morbidity risks; legal induced mortality is less than 1 per 100,000 procedures, approximately 14 times safer than the childbirth-associated death rate of 14-23 per 100,000 live births in developed nations. Serious complications from first-trimester vacuum aspiration occur in under 0.3% of cases, far below maternal hemorrhage or rates in full-term deliveries, which contribute to severe morbidity in 1-2% of labors. This disparity holds across large-scale reviews, emphasizing procedural safety when performed by trained providers, though long-term comparative studies remain limited by ethical constraints on .
ProcedureMajor Complication RateMortality Rate (per 100,000)Key Source
Vacuum Aspiration (First Trimester)<0.2-2.3%<1[web:0], [web:6]
Higher uterine injury (post-9 weeks)Comparable but elevated trauma[web:36]
Medication Abortion (First Trimester)2-5% incomplete/evacuation needed<1 (similar)[web:11], [web:16]
1-2% severe morbidity14-23[web:27]

Comparisons to Alternative Methods

Versus Sharp Dilation and Curettage

Vacuum aspiration utilizes gentle via a to remove uterine contents, minimizing direct instrumentation of the endometrial lining, whereas sharp requires manual scraping with a sharp-edged after mechanical , increasing potential for tissue trauma. Efficacy in achieving complete evacuation is high for both in early , but vacuum methods demonstrate success rates of 97.5% or higher in first-trimester cases, often outperforming sharp curettage in speed and completeness without routine need for adjunctive sharp instrumentation. Procedure times are shorter with aspiration, typically 1-2 minutes less than sharp methods at gestations under 10 weeks, facilitating outpatient settings. Safety advantages accrue to vacuum aspiration, with lower incidences of complications such as (due to absence of sharp tools), excessive blood loss, cervical laceration, and ; for example, vacuum reduces blood loss and pain relative to sharp in incomplete abortion management. The endorses vacuum aspiration as the preferred approach for early uterine evacuation, citing its superior profile in reducing procedural risks compared to sharp . Historically, sharp accounted for 71% of legal abortions in 1965, but by the early 1970s, vacuum aspiration had largely supplanted it following demonstrations of reduced complications and improved efficiency in clinical trials. This shift reflects from comparative studies showing vacuum's lower overall morbidity, particularly in first-trimester procedures where techniques now predominate globally.

Versus Medication Abortion

Vacuum aspiration, a surgical procedure involving mechanical evacuation of the , contrasts with , which uses pharmacological agents such as followed by to induce expulsion of the . Surgical methods like vacuum aspiration achieve higher complete rates, typically 97-100%, compared to 94-97% for regimens in the first trimester. This difference arises because can result in incomplete expulsion requiring subsequent intervention in 3-5% of cases, often necessitating aspiration. In terms of safety, both approaches exhibit low overall complication rates, with medication abortion associated with higher incidences of immediate adverse events such as prolonged bleeding, cramping, and , while vacuum aspiration carries rare risks of or from instrumentation. Peer-reviewed analyses indicate no significant difference in severe complications between the two for early s, though surgical procedures complete more rapidly, reducing exposure to procedural uncertainties. Medication abortion's effectiveness diminishes beyond 10 weeks' , limiting its use to approximately 70 days post-last menstrual period, whereas vacuum aspiration remains viable through 12-14 weeks with sustained high efficacy. Patient experiences differ markedly: abortion offers home-based administration and privacy but involves unpredictable timing of expulsion and higher reported pain levels, leading to variable satisfaction. In contrast, provides immediate results under medical supervision, appealing to those prioritizing certainty, though it requires clinic access and brief . Studies show preferences split, with some cohorts favoring for avoiding (up to 71% in select surveys), yet failed medical cases correlate with lower satisfaction than surgical alternatives. factors, including regulatory restrictions on distribution, further influence method selection, with surgical options maintaining reliability in resource-variable settings.
AspectVacuum AspirationMedication Abortion
Efficacy Rate97-100% complete abortion94-97% complete abortion; 3-5% require follow-up
Gestational Limit (First Trimester)Up to 12-14 weeksUp to 10 weeks (70 days)
Common Side EffectsMinor bleeding, cramping; rare perforation/infectionHeavy bleeding, severe cramping, nausea; higher adverse event rate
SettingClinic-based, supervisedPrimarily home-based after initial visit

Versus Expectant or Surgical Alternatives for Miscarriage

Vacuum aspiration provides higher rates of complete uterine evacuation than expectant for first-trimester , with success rates approaching 95-99% compared to 70-80% for expectant care. Expectant , which relies on spontaneous expulsion of retained , carries a substantially elevated of incomplete ( [RR] 2.56-3.98) and need for unplanned surgical intervention (RR 7.35, occurring in 28% versus 4% of surgical cases). This leads to prolonged bleeding (mean difference [MD] 1.59 additional days) and higher transfusion requirements (RR 6.45) in expectant groups, though overall rates remain comparable (RR 0.63). Vacuum aspiration resolves the process more rapidly, often in a single outpatient procedure under , reducing follow-up needs and aligning with patient preferences for definitive treatment. In a randomized of 127 women with first-trimester , manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) achieved complete evacuation in 95.2% of cases versus 70.3% with expectant management, with only 4.8% requiring re-intervention compared to 29.7%. Complications were low across both arms, including uterine or cervical injury (0% in both), but expectant care showed trends toward higher infection (4.7% vs. 1.6%) and transfusion needs (3.1% vs. 1.6%). Patient satisfaction favored MVA (93.7% vs. 65.6%), attributed to reduced uncertainty and bleeding duration. While expectant management avoids procedural risks and incurs lower costs, its unpredictability increases emotional burden from ongoing symptoms. Compared to other surgical alternatives like dilation and sharp curettage (D&C) or electric vacuum aspiration (EVA), MVA demonstrates equivalent efficacy with success rates exceeding 99% and incomplete evacuation rates below 1% across methods. MVA shortens operative time (mean 6.9 minutes versus 11-14 minutes for EVA or D&C) and supports office-based performance, minimizing needs and hospital stays. Blood loss and severe complications like are rare and statistically similar ( ≥100 mL in <3% for all), but MVA reduces risks associated with sharp instrumentation, such as intrauterine adhesions. Guidelines endorse vacuum methods over sharp D&C for due to these advantages, particularly in resource-limited settings where MVA's portability enhances accessibility.
AspectVacuum Aspiration (MVA)Expectant ManagementD&C/EVA (Surgical Alternatives)
Success Rate95-99%70-80%99%
Re-intervention Rate0.6-4.8%28-30%<1-2%
Mean Procedure/Bleeding Time7 min / MinimalUp to 2 weeks / MD +1.59 days11-14 min / Minimal
Complication Rate (e.g., /)1-2% / <1%1-5% / RR 6.45 transfusion1-2% / <3%

Ethical, Fetal, and Societal Considerations

Fetal Development and Procedural Impact

Vacuum aspiration procedures are generally performed from approximately 6 to 14 weeks of , with the majority occurring in the first trimester. At 6 weeks post-fertilization (8 weeks ), the exhibits a detectable heartbeat via , limb buds, and the beginnings of facial features, marking the transition toward . By 8 weeks , the embryonic stage concludes, and the has formed a basic including a closed , developing eyes and ears, paddle-like limb structures with emerging digits, and a lengthening trunk that distinguishes head from body. Further development by 10 to 12 weeks includes the formation of external genitalia, fingernails, and more defined facial structures, with the fetus capable of spontaneous movement detectable by , though not yet felt by the mother. Major organ systems, such as the heart, brain, liver, and kidneys, continue maturing during this period, with the placenta establishing nutrient and oxygen exchange. These milestones reflect rapid and tissue organization driven by and maternal physiological support. The vacuum aspiration process introduces a through the dilated into the , followed by application of —typically generated manually or electrically at pressures sufficient to evacuate contents—which mechanically disrupts the , , and fetal tissues. This results in fragmentation of the , with aspirated specimens consisting of disarticulated parts such as limbs, torso segments, and cranial elements in procedures beyond 7-8 weeks, alongside and decidual tissue. Pathological analysis of these remains confirms the presence of fetal skeletal and soft tissue elements, often requiring reconstruction for verification, underscoring the procedure's reliance on physical rather than intact extraction. Earlier interventions, before 6 weeks, may yield more intact embryonic sacs, but post-9 weeks, the increased fetal size and structural integrity necessitate higher forces, elevating the risk of incomplete evacuation if not managed precisely.

Maternal Psychological and Relational Consequences

Women undergoing vacuum aspiration, a common surgical method for first-trimester , experience varied psychological outcomes, with empirical studies indicating elevated risks of disorders compared to women who carry pregnancies to term. A 2011 meta-analysis of 36 studies published between 1995 and 2009 found that women who had an faced an 81% increased of problems, including , depression, and , accounting for nearly 10% of the incidence of these conditions post-procedure. This risk persisted across diverse populations, though some institutional reviews, such as those from the , have contested causality, attributing issues to pre-existing factors rather than the procedure itself—a perspective critiqued for potential in source data favoring minimal adverse effects. Long-term data reinforce these findings, with a Finnish registry study of over 500,000 women showing mental health-related hospitalization rates of 104 per 10,000 person-years following induced abortion, versus 42 for other pregnancies, with risks peaking within five years but declining gradually thereafter. Common sequelae include depression (reported in up to 34% of surgical abortion cases), anxiety, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and concerns over future fertility, as identified in qualitative assessments of post-abortion care seekers. A 2025 analysis further linked abortion to higher hospitalization for conditions like depression and bipolar disorder, highlighting a dose-response pattern where multiple procedures amplified risks. These outcomes contrast with claims of no net mental health detriment, underscoring the need for rigorous, unbiased longitudinal tracking beyond short-term follow-ups. Relationally, vacuum aspiration can strain partnerships, with reports of emotional discord, reduced intimacy, and dissolution in subsets of couples. Surveys indicate that 7.8% to 19.8% of women attribute relationship endings directly to the , often amid unresolved or differing partner views on the decision. Post-procedure, up to 33% of women in committed relationships note diminished sexual satisfaction or avoidance, linked to guilt, loss, or physical recovery challenges. While aggregate data from pro-choice organizations suggest no overall rise in separation rates compared to term births, individual trajectories reveal heightened conflict, particularly when or factors in, potentially exacerbating relational instability over time. Counseling interventions post-procedure may mitigate these effects, though evidence on their efficacy remains limited.

Broader Debates on Morality, Legality, and Alternatives to Abortion

The moral debate surrounding vacuum aspiration centers on the ontological status of the embryo or during the first trimester, when the procedure is typically performed. A survey of over 5,500 biologists from more than 1,000 academic institutions found that 95% to 96% affirm that a 's life begins at fertilization, establishing the embryo as a distinct from that point onward. Pro-life advocates argue from first principles that intentionally ending this developing human life via suction aspiration constitutes , as the procedure dismembers and extracts the embryo or , regardless of , violating the inherent possessed by all beings irrespective of dependency or developmental stage. Pro-choice positions, often emphasizing bodily autonomy, contend that the pregnant woman's rights supersede those of the non-sentient or non-viable , drawing analogies to scenarios where no obligation exists to sustain another's life with one's body; however, critics of this view maintain that such analogies fail to account for the causal responsibility of conception and the non-arbitrary nature of equality from fertilization, rejecting location- or size-based criteria for as inconsistent with equal protection principles. Legally, vacuum aspiration is regulated under broader abortion statutes, with permissibility varying sharply by . As of 2025, approximately 67 countries permit on request up to certain gestational limits, often including first-trimester surgical methods like vacuum aspiration, while 24 nations impose total bans with no exceptions for elective procedures. In the United States, following the 2022 Dobbs v. decision overturning , 12 states maintain near-total bans on , including vacuum aspiration, from conception or early , with exceptions typically limited to life-threatening maternal conditions; conversely, 31 states and the District of Columbia allow it up to viability or beyond under varying restrictions. These laws reflect ongoing contention, with pro-life jurisdictions prioritizing fetal protection and pro-choice ones focusing on access to reproductive healthcare, though empirical data indicate that method-specific bans on vacuum aspiration are rare, as it is classified among standard early surgical options rather than more controversial later-term procedures. Alternatives to abortion via vacuum aspiration emphasize continuing the pregnancy to term, supported by empirical evidence of viable non-lethal options for unintended pregnancies. In the U.S., domestic infant adoptions number around 18,000 annually, offering a pathway for relinquishing parental rights while ensuring the child's placement in a family, though adoption rates remain low—less than 2% of unintended pregnancies end in adoption—partly due to barriers like emotional attachment and logistical support gaps. State-funded alternatives-to-abortion programs, operational in 18 states as of February 2025, provide material aid such as prenatal care, housing assistance, childcare subsidies, and parenting classes to over 100,000 women yearly, demonstrating measurable reductions in abortion rates among participants through direct economic and relational support. Other options include co-parenting arrangements, temporary guardianship, or single parenting bolstered by expanded social services, with studies showing that comprehensive support networks correlate with higher continuation rates and improved maternal outcomes compared to post-abortion trajectories, countering claims that abortion is the sole feasible choice in early pregnancies. These alternatives underscore causal pathways where policy interventions addressing root factors like financial instability can preserve both maternal agency and fetal life without invoking procedural termination.

References

  1. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/vacuum-aspiration
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459234/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5749305/
  4. https://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/Gyn/PreparingForSurgicalAbortion.pdf
  5. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/harvey-leroy-karman-1924-2008
  6. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2803517
  7. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/17/1/92/554118
  8. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0211-95362008000100015
  9. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abortion-care/vacuum-aspiration/6E6A75D52A15E9874BA23C11B2DF1A3F
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8407039/
  11. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2807%2900048-8/fulltext
  12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568791/
  13. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/dilation-and-curettage/about/pac-20384910
  14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7805979/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7667767/
  16. https://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/professional_education/TextbookCh10.pdf
  17. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dc3f/65c4b1dc1fd643a792dd6b3dfd4d096f7220.pdf
  18. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.03.016
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10865674/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2427078/
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11959170_Manual_vacuum_aspiration_a_safe_and_effective_alternative_in_early_pregnancy_termination
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4474149/
  23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190094/
  24. https://medicalguidelines.msf.org/en/viewport/ONC/english/9-5-manual-vacuum-aspiration-mva-51417954.html
  25. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28978/
  26. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13003/
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11687167/
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14759624/
  29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14704252/
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010782422000853
  31. https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-020-03362-4
  32. https://www.ijrcog.org/index.php/ijrcog/article/download/10764/6785/38087
  33. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/first-trimester-pregnancy-termination-uterine-aspiration
  34. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gynecology-and-obstetrics/family-planning/induced-abortion
  35. https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/aspiration-versus-medication-abortion
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25932839/
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31420315/
  38. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/
  39. https://www.figo.org/news/figo-consensus-statement-uterine-evacuation
  40. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-bulletin/articles/2018/11/early-pregnancy-loss
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7064046/
  42. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2011/0701/p75.html
  43. https://journals.lww.com/ebp/fulltext/2015/05000/how_do_the_safety%2C_efficacy%2C_and_patient.10.aspx
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10590258/
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10616057/
  46. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26238336/
  47. https://academics.prismahealth.org/academics/education/obgyn-clinical-practice-guidelines/gynecology/manual-vacuum-aspiration-for-treatment-of-early-pregnancy-loss-guideline-1
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5858439/
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301211503003208
  50. https://rhedi.org/mva-protocol/
  51. https://rightdecisions.scot.nhs.uk/media/favemfoy/manual-vacuum-aspiration-protocol.pdf
  52. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1848296-overview
  53. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03079622
  54. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.080006563.x
  55. https://www.jsafog.com/doi/10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1250
  56. https://www.ipas.org/clinical-update/english/postabortion-care/managing-uterine-perforation/
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16575361/
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/vacuum-aspiration
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7333799/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4400701/
  61. https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/articles/practice-guideline-11-a-detailed-examination-of-the-data-on-surgical-abortion-and-preterm-birth/
  62. https://aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/FINAL-PRACTICE-BULLETIN-5-Abortion-Preterm-Birth.pdf
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10622735/
  64. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1410
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3395931/
  66. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0905882
  67. https://www.glowm.com/section-view/heading/Long-Term%2520Risks%2520of%2520Surgical%2520Abortion/item/440
  68. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507237/
  69. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3756&context=lnq
  70. http://old.jsp.org.pk/Issues/JSP%252025%2520%282%29%2520April%2520-%2520June%25202020/Kaneez%2520Kubra%2520OA.pdf
  71. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00404-025-08053-z
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000293787490204X
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020729298001969
  74. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2003/01/complication-rate-lower-surgical-medical-second-trimester-abortion
  75. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/2012/06/giving-misoprostol-vacuum-aspiration-lowers-risk-complications
  76. http://unmfamilyplanning.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/119312553/Raymond%2Bet%2Bal-Comparative%2BSafety.pdf
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9683756/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7350112/
  79. https://www.ipas.org/clinical-update/english/general-recommendations/uterine-evacuation-replace-sharp-curettage-with-aspiration-or-medications/
  80. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c267/674d22e94747cdc3a15ce59634676e85dfd4.pdf
  81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20343/
  82. https://www.ijlbpr.com/uploadfiles/63vol13issue9pp369-375.20240925034730.pdf
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8406531/
  84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15504379/
  85. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2009/10000/immediate_complications_after_medical_compared.14.aspx
  86. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249529
  87. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-bulletin/articles/2020/10/medication-abortion-up-to-70-days-of-gestation
  88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11756368/
  89. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article-abstract/20/3/834/2356484
  90. https://www.obstetricgynecoljournal.com/articles/cjog-aid1150.php
  91. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26410397.2022.2149379
  92. https://srhr.org/abortioncare/chapter-3/abortion-3-4/
  93. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302
  94. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth
  95. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/the-first-trimester
  96. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK582659/
  97. https://meridian.allenpress.com/aplm/article/137/3/326/193427/Pathologic-Examination-of-Fetal-and-Placental
  98. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-quantitative-synthesis-and-analysisof-research-published-19952009/E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BEE6C3D
  99. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/amp-64-9-863.pdf
  100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40408979/
  101. https://care.org.uk/news/2025/08/significant-link-between-abortion-and-mental-health-issues-in-women-new-study-finds
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033350609000225
  103. https://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol6no4_1994.html
  104. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/research_article/file_attachments/4701115.pdf
  105. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
  106. https://lozierinstitute.org/science-to-kentucky-judge-mitch-perry-human-life-begins-at-fertilization/
  107. https://www.str.org/w/biologists-overwhelmingly-agree-that-human-life-begins-at-fertilization
  108. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abortion/
  109. https://www.globalcitizensolutions.com/the-abortion-laws-which-countries-allow-abortion/
  110. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/abortion-in-the-u-s-dashboard/
  111. https://lozierinstitute.org/alternatives-to-abortion-programs-support-for-mothers-and-families/
  112. https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-state-alternatives-to-abortion-funding/
  113. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232131/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.