Unilateral Versus Bilateral Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling Using Thermal Dose Adjusted According to Ovarian Volume in CC-Resistant PCOS, A Randomized Study

Ovulation induction techniques in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Anovulation is very common and has several different clinical manifestations, including amenorrhea, oligomenorrhea and abnormal uterine bleeding. Various mechanisms can cause anovulation. The clinical consequences and commonest chronic anovulatory disorder, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), has a prevalence that ranges between 6 to 10% of the global population. While multiple causes can eventually result in PCOS, various methods have been described in the literature for its management, often without ascertaining the underlying cause. Ovulation Induction (OI) is a group of techniques that is used in women with PCOS who are looking to conceive and are unbale to do so with natural means. This narrative review presents a summary of the current evidence and available techniques for OI in women with PCOS, highlighting their performance and applicability.

Metformin With or Without Clomiphene Citrate Versus Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling With or Without Clomiphene Citrate to Treat Patients With Clomiphene Citrate-Resistant Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Which is optimal to treat clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (CCR-PCOS) with LOD or metformin remains a problem. There are three inconsistent or even contradictory views.

Objectives: The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Metformin with or without CC and to compare them with LOD with or without CC (Met/Met-CC vs. LOD/LOD-CC) in women with CCR-PCOS who also have anovulation.

Data source: The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched to identify relevant studies reported between 1 Jan 1966 and 31 Aug 2019; the search was updated on 17 May 2022.

Study eligibility criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CCR-PCOS that had considered Met/Met-CC and LOD/LOD-CC as the exposure variables and fertility as the main outcome variable.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate and the primary safety outcome was miscarriage rate. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed. The robustness of the results was assessed using sensitivity analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to examine the reasons for heterogeneity. Publication bias was examined using the funnel plot, Egger linear regression, and Begg rank correlation tests. The quality of this meta-analysis was estimated according to the GRADE approach. This meta-analysis has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021240156).

Results: Among 71 potentially relevant studies, we included five RCTs in our meta-analysis. We found no difference in effectiveness between Met-CC and LOD in terms of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87–1.21, z = 0.28; p = 0.780), and miscarriage rates (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.46–1.36, z = 0.86; p = 0.390). I2 tests results revealed moderate or no heterogeneity (I2 = 51.4%, p = 0.083; I2= 0.0%; p = 0.952). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. Funnel plot, Egger linear regression, and Begg rank correlation tests implied no publication bias (p > 0.05). LOD was more expensive than Met (€1050 vs. €50.16). The evidence quality was moderate.

Conclusion: There is no evidence on the difference in the outcomes between the two interventions regarding ovulation, pregnancy, and live birth. As LOD is an invasive procedure and carries inherent risks, the use of Met/Met-CC should be the second-line treatment for women with CCR-PCOS.

Systematic Review Registration: identifier CRD42021240156.

Variation of Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling for Clomiphene Citrate-resistant Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Infertility: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate novel surgical variations of laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) and compare with standard bilateral LOD.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched, including Cochrane database, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Virtual Health Library, OpenSIGLE, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and The Chinese Clinical Trial Register in February 2019.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating LOD for patients with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome and infertility and reporting reproductive outcomes, surgical complications, serum indexes, menses resumption, and ultrasound results were included. Quality and risk of bias were evaluated by 2 authors, respectively.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 20 RCTs with 1615 patients were included. Evaluation of the quality of evidence for each study was based on each study's limitations of 5 outcome domains described by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and found to be moderate to very low. Live births were only reported by 4 studies. Unilateral LOD did not differ with bilateral LOD in reproductive outcomes, such as pregnancy (p = .11, I² = 75%), ovulation (p = .08, I² = 0%), miscarriage (p = .61), and menstruation resumption (p = .06). There was insufficient evidence regarding efficacy and safety of novel methods of LOD, such as transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (1 RCT) and micro-LOD (3 RCTs). Evidence regarding the suitable number of ovarian punctures, duration of drilling, and antimüllerian hormone or antral follicle numbers following LOD were inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral LOD seems to be suitable replacement for conventional bilateral LOD for clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome, although more studies involving long-term reproductive efficacy, adverse events, and varying forms of LOD are warranted.

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I² = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I² = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I² = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.

Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling Improves Endometrial Homeobox Gene Expression in PCOS

The study was designed to investigate whether laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) of ovaries alters the expression levels of HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA in the endometrium of infertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS. Expression of HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA in the endometrium obtained before and after LOD during the midsecretory phase was measured. Expression of each gene was evaluated using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Expression levels of HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA were lower in endometrium of patients with PCOS before LOD compared with fertile controls. But the differences failed to show statistical significance. Compared with fertile subjects, LOD of PCOS ovaries up-regulated endometrial HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA expression. Fold changes of HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA after LOD were found to be 4.46 and 4.19, respectively. Fold change increase in HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA was found to be statistically significant (P < .01, P < .02). There is a receptivity defect in the endometrium of women with PCOS that affects fertility regardless of other causes of infertility. LOD increases endometrial HOXA-10 and HOXA-11 mRNA expressions and improves receptivity in patients with clomiphene-resistant PCOS.

Is Endometriosis More Common and More Severe Than It Was 30 Years Ago?

OBJECTIVE

Current estimates of endometriosis prevalence and incidence are highly variable, leading to uncertainty regarding true endometriosis frequency or validity of quantified changes over time. We present a comprehensive review of the prevalence, incidence, and stage of endometriosis worldwide as reported over the past 30 years.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic search of observational studies using the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases to identify research papers published in English between January 1989 and June 2019. Search terminologies were limited to titles containing endometriosis and prevalence or incidence, or epidemiology, or frequency, or occurrence, or statistics.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for study eligibility, and data from included studies were abstracted.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Overall, 69 studies describing the prevalence and/or incidence of endometriosis met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 26 studies involved general population samples, 17 of which were from regional/national hospitals or insurance claims systems. The other 43 studies were conducted in single clinic or hospital settings. Prevalence estimates for endometriosis widely varied from 0.2% to 71.4% depending on the population sampled. The prevalence reported in general population studies ranged from 0.7% to 8.6%, whereas that reported in single clinic- or hospital-based studies ranged from 0.2% to 71.4%. When defined by indications for diagnosis, endometriosis prevalence ranged from 15.4% to 71.4% among women with chronic pelvic pain, 9.0% to 68.0% among women presenting with infertility, and 3.7% to 43.3% among women undergoing tubal sterilization. A meta-regression was conducted with year as the predictor of prevalence. No trend across time was observed among "general population in country/region" studies (β = 0.04, p = .12) or among "single hospital or clinic" studies (β = -0.02, p = .34); however, a decrease over time was observed among general population studies abstracted from health systems or insurance systems (β = -0.10, p = .005).

CONCLUSION

As with all human studies, population sampling and study design matter. Heterogeneity of inclusion and diagnostic criteria and selection bias overwhelmingly account for variability in endometriosis prevalence estimated across the literature. Thus, it is difficult to conclude if the lack of observed change in frequency and distribution of endometriosis over the past 30 years is valid.

The Prevalence of Incidental Endometriosis in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling for Clomiphene-Resistant Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis

To evaluate the incidence of endometriosis in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients who did not present with any endometriosis symptoms and underwent laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) for clomiphene citrate (CC) resistance, 225 and 630 women with CC-resistant PCOS without classic endometriosis symptoms were included in a retrospective study and a meta-analysis, respectively. All women underwent LOD. The main outcome parameter was the prevalence of incidental endometriosis. Laparoscopy revealed endometriosis in 38/225 (16.9%) women (revised American Fertility Society (rAFS) stage I: 33/38, 86.8%; rAFS stage II: 5/38, 13.2%). When women with CC-resistant PCOS without endometriosis were compared, lower body mass index (BMI) and lower 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels were associated with the presence of endometriosis at laparoscopy (odds ratios (OR): 0.872, 95% confidence intervals (95%CI): 0.792-0.960; p = 0.005 and OR: 0.980, 95%CI: 0.962-0.999; p = 0.036; respectively). The inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were fulfilled by 4/230 reports about LOD. After correction for study heterogeneity, the pooled prevalence of incidental endometriosis was 7.7% in women with CC-resistant PCOS. In conclusion, the rate of incidental endometriosis in women with CC-resistant PCOS might reflect the prevalence of asymptomatic endometriosis. All cases were affected by minimal or mild disease. Since the literature lacks reports on associated clinical outcomes, the relevance of this entity in such patients should be the subject of further studies.