Anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy for treating female subfertility

4DryField vs. hyalobarrier gel for preventing the recurrence of intrauterine adhesions - a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

This was a single-center pilot study that sought to describe an innovative use of 4DryField® PH (premix) for preventing the recurrence of intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis in patients with Asherman's syndrome (AS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-three patients with AS were enrolled and 20 were randomized (1:1 ratio) to intrauterine application of 4DryField® PH (n = 10) or Hyalobarrier® gel (n = 10) in a single-blind manner. We evaluated IUAs (American Fertility Society [AFS] score) during initial hysteroscopy and second-look hysteroscopy one month later. Patients completed a follow-up symptoms questionnaire three and reproductive outcomes questionnaire six months later.

RESULTS

The demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as severity of IUAs, were comparable in both groups. The mean initial AFS score was 9 and 8.5 in the 4DryField® PH and Hyalobarrier® gel groups, respectively (p = .476). There were no between-group differences in AFS progress (5.9 vs. 5.6, p = .675), need for secondary adhesiolysis (7 vs. 7 patients, p = 1), and the follow-up outcomes.

CONCLUSION

4DryField® PH could be a promising antiadhesive agent for preventing the recurrence of IUAs, showing similar effectiveness and safety to Hyalobarrier® gel. Our findings warrant prospective validation in a larger clinical trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER

ISRCTN15630617.

Anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility

BACKGROUND

Observational evidence suggests a potential benefit with several anti-adhesion therapies in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy (e.g. insertion of an intrauterine device or balloon, hormonal treatment, barrier gels or human amniotic membrane grafting) for decreasing intrauterine adhesions (IUAs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy, following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to June 2017: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO); MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL and other electronic sources of trials, including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, and we contacted experts in the field. We also searched reference lists of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and IUAs present at second-look hysteroscopy, along with mean adhesion scores and severity of IUAs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated quality of evidence using the GRADE method.

MAIN RESULTS

The overall quality of the evidence was low to very low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias related to blinding of participants and personnel, indirectness and imprecision. We identified 16 RCTs comparing a device versus no treatment (two studies; 90 women), hormonal treatment versus no treatment or placebo (two studies; 136 women), device combined with hormonal treatment versus no treatment (one study; 20 women), barrier gel versus no treatment (five studies; 464 women), device with graft versus device without graft (three studies; 190 women), one type of device versus another device (one study; 201 women), gel combined with hormonal treatment and antibiotics versus hormonal treatment with antibiotics (one study; 52 women) and device combined with gel versus device (one study; 120 women). The total number of participants was 1273, but data on 1133 women were available for analysis. Only two of 16 studies included 100% infertile women; in all other studies, the proportion was variable or unknown.No study reported live birth, but some (five studies) reported outcomes that were used as surrogate outcomes for live birth (term delivery or ongoing pregnancy). Anti-adhesion therapy versus placebo or no treatment following operative hysteroscopy.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the use of a device or hormonal treatment compared to no treatment or placebo with respect to term delivery or ongoing pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 2.12; 107 women; 2 studies; I² = 0%; very-low-quality evidence).There were fewer IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy using a device with or without hormonal treatment or hormonal treatment or barrier gels compared with no treatment or placebo (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60; 560 women; 8 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 9 (95% CI 5 to 17). Comparisons of different anti-adhesion therapies following operative hysteroscopyIt was unclear whether there was a difference between the use of a device combined with graft versus device only for the outcome of ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.83; 180 women; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). There were fewer IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy using a device with or without graft/gel or gel combined with hormonal treatment and antibiotics compared with using a device only or hormonal treatment combined with antibiotics, but the findings of this meta-analysis were affected by evidence quality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83; 451 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implications for clinical practiceThe quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The effectiveness of anti-adhesion treatment for improving key reproductive outcomes or for decreasing IUAs following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women remains uncertain. Implications for researchMore research is needed to assess the comparative safety and (cost-)effectiveness of different anti-adhesion treatments compared to no treatment or other interventions for improving key reproductive outcomes in subfertile women.

Anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility

BACKGROUND

Limited observational evidence suggests potential benefit for subfertile women undergoing operative hysteroscopy with several anti-adhesion therapies (e.g. insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) or balloon, hormonal treatment, barrier gels or human amniotic membrane grafting) to decrease intrauterine adhesions (IUAs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to March 2015: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and other electronic sources of trials, including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, and we contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised comparisons of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women. The primary outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and IUAs present at second look, along with their mean adhesion scores or severity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 randomised studies on use of an inserted device versus no treatment (two studies; 84 women) or another inserted device (one study; 162 women), hormonal treatment versus no treatment or placebo (two studies; 131 women), gel versus no treatment (five studies; 383 women) and graft versus no graft (one study; 43 women). The total number of women randomly assigned was 924, but data on only 803 participants were available for analysis. The proportion of subfertile women varied from 0% (one study; 41 women), to less than 50% (six studies; 487 women), to 100% (one study; 43 women); the proportion was unknown in three studies (232 women). Most studies (9/11) were at high risk of bias with respect to one or more methodological criteria.We found no evidence of differences between anti-adhesion therapy and no treatment or placebo with respect to live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 2.13, P value = 0.98, three studies, 150 women; low-quality evidence) and no statistical heterogeneity (Chi(2) = 0.14, df = 2 (P value = 0.93), I(2) = 0%).Anti-adhesion therapy was associated with fewer IUAs at any second-look hysteroscopy when compared with no treatment or placebo (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.64, P value = 0.0005, seven studies, 528 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no statistical heterogeneity (Chi(2) = 2.65, df = 5 (P value = 0.75), I(2) = 0%). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 9 (95% CI 6 to 20).No evidence suggested differences between an IUD and an intrauterine balloon with respect to IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.37, P value = 0.54, one study, 162 women; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implications for clinical practiceThe quality of the evidence retrieved was low or very low for all outcomes. Clinical effectiveness of anti-adhesion treatment for improving key reproductive outcomes or for decreasing IUAs following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women remains uncertain. Implications for researchAdditional studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of different anti-adhesion therapies for improving reproductive outcomes in subfertile women treated by operative hysteroscopy.

Adhesion prevention agents for gynaecological surgery: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Intraperitoneal adhesions are associated with considerable co-morbidity and have large financial and public health repercussions. They have secondary effects that include chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, subfertility and bowel obstruction. In women with adhesions, subsequent surgery is more difficult, often takes longer, and is associated with a higher complication rate (Broek 2013). The significant burden of adhesions has led to the development of several anti-adhesion agents, although there is disagreement as to their relative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise evidence derived from Cochrane systematic reviews on the clinical safety and effectiveness of solid agents, gel agents, liquid agents and pharmacological agents, used as adjuvants to prevent formation of adhesions after gynaecological pelvic surgery.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched using the keyword 'adhesion' up to August 2014. The Cochrane information management system was also searched for any titles or protocols of reviews in progress. Two review authors independently extracted information from the reviews, with disagreements being resolved by a third review author. The quality of the included reviews was described in a narrative manner, and the AMSTAR tool was used to formally assess each review included in this overview. The quality of evidence provided in the original reviews was described using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two reviews, one with 18 studies comparing solid agents (oxidised regenerated cellulose expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose, and fibrin sheets) with control or with each other. The other review included 29 studies which compared liquid agents (4% icodextrin, 32% dextran, crystalloids), gel agents (carboxymethylcellulose and polyethylene oxide, polyethylene glycol gels, hyaluronic acid based gel, 0.5% ferric hyaluronate gel, sodium hyaluronate spray) and pharmacological agents (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, reteplase plasminogen activator, N,O-carboxymethyl chitosan, steroid agents, intraperitoneal noxytioline, intraperitoneal heparin, systemic promethazine) with control or each other. Both reviews met all of the criteria of the AMSTAR assessment.The reviews included as outcomes both the primary outcomes of this overview (pelvic pain, pregnancy, live birth rate and quality of life (QoL)) and our secondary outcomes (adverse effects, presence or absence of adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (SLL) and adhesion score). However, neither of the reviews identified any primary studies of solid, gel or pharmacological agents that reported any of our primary outcomes. The only studies in either review that reported any of our primary outcomes were studies comparing liquid agents versus control (saline or Hartmann's solution), which reported pelvic pain (two studies), live birth (two studies) and pregnancy (three studies).An external source of funding was stated for 25 of the 47 studies across both reviews; in 24 of these studies the funding was commercial. Solid agents (18 studies)None of our primary outcomes were reported. Adverse events were reported as an outcome by only 9 of the 18 studies. These reported no adverse events. Liquid agents (nine studies)There was no evidence of a difference between liquid agents and control (saline or Hartmann's solution) with respect to pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.14, 1 study, n = 286, moderate quality evidence), pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14, 3 studies, n = 310, moderate quality evidence) or live birth rate (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58, 2 studies, n = 208, moderate quality evidence). No studies of liquid agents reported QoL. Adverse events were not reported as an outcome by any of the nine studies. Gel agents (seven studies)None of our primary outcomes were reported. Adverse events were not reported as an outcome by any of the seven studies. Pharmacological agents (seven studies)None of our primary outcomes were reported. Adverse events were reported as an outcome by only one of the seven primary studies. This study reported no evidence of difference in ectopic pregnancy rates between intraperitoneal noxytioline and no treatment (OR 4.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 53.27, 1 study, n = 33, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to allow us to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of anti-adhesion agents in gynaecological surgery, due to the lack of data on pelvic pain, fertility outcomes, quality of life or safety. A substantial proportion of research in this field has been funded by private companies that manufacture these agents, and further high powered, independent trials will be needed before definitive conclusions can be made.