1
|
Mercorio A, Della Corte L, Boccia D, Palumbo M, Reppuccia S, Buonfantino C, Cuomo L, Borgo M, Zitiello A, De Angelis MC, Laganà AS, Bifulco G, Giampaolino P. Myomectomy in infertile women: More harm than good? Front Surg 2023; 10:1151901. [PMID: 37139194 PMCID: PMC10150951 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1151901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2023] [Accepted: 03/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Adhesion formation following gynecological surgery remains a challenge. The adoption of minimally invasive surgical approaches, such as conventional or robotic-assisted laparoscopy combined with meticulous microsurgical principles and the application of adhesion-reducing substances, is able to reduce the risk of de novo adhesion formation but do not eliminate it entirely. Myomectomy is the most adhesiogenic surgical procedure and postoperative adhesions can have a significant impact on the ability to conceive. Therefore, when surgery is performed as infertility treatment, attention should be paid to whether the benefits outweigh the risks. Among several factors, the size and the location of fibroids are the most accountable factors in terms of adhesion development and post surgical infertility; therefore, the search for effective strategies against adhesion formation in this setting is of paramount importance. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the incidence and factors of adhesion formation and the best preventive measures current available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Mercorio
- Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
- Correspondence: Antonio Mercorio
| | - Luigi Della Corte
- Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Dominga Boccia
- Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Mario Palumbo
- Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Sabrina Reppuccia
- Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Cira Buonfantino
- Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Lara Cuomo
- Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Maria Borgo
- Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Antonio Zitiello
- Department of Woman Mother Child, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | | | - Antonio Simone Laganà
- Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS “Civico-Di Cristina-Benfratelli”, Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Bifulco
- Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Duffy JMN, Bhattacharya S, Curtis C, Evers JLH, Farquharson RG, Franik S, Khalaf Y, Legro RS, Lensen S, Mol BW, Niederberger C, Ng EHY, Repping S, Strandell A, Torrance HL, Vail A, van Wely M, Vuong NL, Wang AY, Wang R, Wilkinson J, Youssef MA, Farquhar CM. A protocol developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set for infertility. Hum Reprod Open 2018; 2018:hoy007. [PMID: 30895248 PMCID: PMC6276643 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoy007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2018] [Accepted: 04/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTIONS We aim to produce, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for future infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating infertility treatments have reported many different outcomes, which are often defined and measured in different ways. Such variation contributes to an inability to compare, contrast and combine results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently collected and reported across future infertility research. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is a consensus study using the modified Delphi method. All stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, researchers and people with lived experience of infertility will be invited to participate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS An international steering group, including people with lived experience of infertility, healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and researchers, has been formed to guide the development of this core outcome set. Potential core outcomes have been identified through a comprehensive literature review of RCTs evaluating treatments for infertility and will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Participants will be asked to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale anchored between one (not important) and nine (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote convergence towards consensus ‘core’ outcomes. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This project is funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand Catalyst Fund (3712235). BWM reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, Merck, and ObsEva. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Fractyl and Ogeda and research sponsorship from Ferring. S.B. is the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J M N Duffy
- Balliol College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - S Bhattacharya
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - C Curtis
- Fertility New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand.,School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - J L H Evers
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Biology, University Medical Centre Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - R G Farquharson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - S Franik
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany
| | - Y Khalaf
- Assisted Conception Unit, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| | - R S Legro
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Penn State College of Medicine, PA, USA
| | - S Lensen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - B W Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - C Niederberger
- Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - E H Y Ng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - S Repping
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Institute, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Strandell
- Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - H L Torrance
- Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - A Vail
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - M van Wely
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Institute, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - N L Vuong
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| | - A Y Wang
- Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, Australia
| | - R Wang
- Robinson Research Institute and Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - J Wilkinson
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - M A Youssef
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - C M Farquhar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
ten Broek RPG, Kok-Krant N, Verhoeve HR, van Goor H, Bakkum EA. Efficacy of polyethylene glycol adhesion barrier after gynecological laparoscopic surgery: Results of a randomized controlled pilot study. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2011; 9:29-35. [PMID: 22408577 PMCID: PMC3285763 DOI: 10.1007/s10397-011-0698-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2011] [Accepted: 08/11/2011] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Postoperative adhesions are the most frequent complication of peritoneal surgery, causing small bowel obstruction, female infertility and chronic pain. This pilot study assessed the efficacy of a sprayable polyethylene glycol (PEG) barrier in the prevention of de novo adhesions. 16 patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery were randomly assigned by shuffled sealed envelopes to receive either the adhesion barrier or no adhesion prevention. Incidence and severity of adhesions were scored at eight sites in the pelvis and reassessed by second look laparoscopy. Adhesion prevention was considered successful if no de novo adhesion were found at second look laparoscopy. One patient was excluded before randomization. Nine patients were randomized to treatment and six patients to control group. De novo adhesions were found in 0/9 patients who received the PEG barrier compared to 4/6 without adhesion prevention (0% vs. 67%, P = 0.01). Reduction in adhesion score was significantly greater in patients receiving PEG barrier (−2.6 vs. −0.06, P = 0.03). Meta-analysis of three randomized trials demonstrated that PEG barrier reduces the incidence of adhesions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.27; 95% CI 0.11–0.67). From this study, PEG barrier seems effective in reducing postoperative formation of de novo adhesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R. P. G. ten Broek
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - N. Kok-Krant
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, P.O. Box 95500, 1090 HM Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H. R. Verhoeve
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, P.O. Box 95500, 1090 HM Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H. van Goor
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - E. A. Bakkum
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, P.O. Box 95500, 1090 HM Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bosteels J, Weyers S, Mathieu C, Mol BW, D'Hooghe T. The effectiveness of reproductive surgery in the treatment of female infertility: facts, views and vision. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2010; 2:232-52. [PMID: 25009712 PMCID: PMC4086009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of reproductive surgery is declining due to the widespread availability of assisted reproductive technology, but an evidence-based fundament for this decline is lacking. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomised trials evaluating laparoscopic or hysteroscopic interventions in subfertile women, studying pregnancy or live birth rates. We present an overview of the results and quality of the detected studies. RESULTS The methodological quality of the 63 detected studies was mediocre. The laparoscopic treatment of minimal/ mild endometriosis might increase the pregnancy rate but the two major studies report conflicting results. Excision of the endometriotic cyst wall increases the spontaneous conception rate (RR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4-5.5). Laparoscopic ovarian drilling results at least in equal pregnancy rates as gonadotropin treatment (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.83-1.2) but decreases the multiple pregnancy rate (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.58). Laparoscopic tubal surgery for hydrosalpinx prior to IVF increases the pregnancy rate (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.7). Removal of polyps prior to IUI increases the pregnancy rate (RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6-3.1). Myomectomy for submucosal fibroids results in higher pregnancy rates (RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6-2.9). The removal of intramural/ subserosal fibroids shows a beneficial trend, albeit not statistically significant (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.75-1.9). Hysteroscopy in patients with recurrent IVF failure increases the pregnancy rates even in the absence of pathology (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9). CONCLUSIONS Although the limited evidence indicates a positive role for some surgical reproductive interventions, we should be very cautious in providing guidelines for clinical practice in reproductive surgery since more research is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Bosteels
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Imeldahospitaal, Imeldalaan 9, 2820 Bonheiden, Belgium. ; CEBAM, Centre for evidence-based medicine, the Belgian branch of the Cochrane Collaboration, Capucijnenvoer 33, blok J, 3000 Leuven
| | - S Weyers
- Universitaire Vrouwenkliniek,Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
| | - C Mathieu
- Department of Endocrinology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - B W Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Centre, 1105 DE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - T D'Hooghe
- Leuven University Fertility Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, -Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|