Impact of cystectomy versus ablation for endometrioma on ovarian reserve: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Impact of Ablation Versus Cystectomy for Endometrioma on Ovarian Reserve, Recurrence, and Pregnancy: An Updated Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to compare the impact of ablation and cystectomy for ovarian endometrioma on ovarian reserve, recurrence rates, and pregnancy rates. Databases were searched for studies reporting ovarian reserve (measurement of anti-müllerian hormone [AMH] only), recurrence rates, and/or pregnancy rates after cystectomy and ablation for ovarian endometrioma. Six randomized clinical trials and five prospective cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. All included studies had a low risk of bias. After ablation, weighted mean difference (WMD) between post- and pre-operative AMH values was - 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.61 to -0.19, p = 0.0002, I2 = 0%). After cystectomy, the WMD of AMH was - 1.08 (95% CI: -1.34 to -0.82, p < 0.00001, I2 = 48%). The intergroup comparison revealed that pre-operative AMH values were similar between the two groups, but post-operative AMH was significantly higher in the ablation group (WMD: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.63, p = 0.003, I2 = 3%). Subgroup analysis showed that the favorable effects of ablation compared to cystectomy are evident after three months of operation, in a bilateral setting, or with the laser ablation method. Overall recurrence rate (risk ratio [RR]: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.12, p = 0.02, I2 = 0%) and one-year recurrence rate (RR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.30 to 4.31, p = 0.005, I2 = 0%) were significantly higher in the ablation group than in the cystectomy group. Pregnancy rates were similar between the two groups (odds ratio: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.52, p = 0.20, I2 = 72%). These results demonstrate that ablation could result in a smaller serum AMH decrement than cystectomy, but the recurrence rate could be higher after ablation.

Comparison of ovarian reserve after cystectomy of ovarian endometrioma by bipolar coagulation, suture method, or hemostatic sealants: An updated meta-analysis

AIM

The purpose of the study was to compare the ovarian reserve after cystectomy of ovarian endometrioma by bipolar coagulation, suture method, or hemostatic sealants (HSs).

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of studies in which post-cystectomy serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) values were compared between bipolar coagulation and suture method or between bipolar coagulation and HSs. Through a literature search, we retrieved 14 articles which met inclusion criteria and were eligible for final analysis. The articles included 10 randomized trials, 3 prospective studies, and 1 retrospective study (n = 1435). The primary outcome was post-cystectomy serum AMH values.

RESULTS

Both bipolar coagulation and suture methods showed significantly lower post-cystectomy AMH values at 3, 6, and 12 months. However, post-cystectomy serum AMH values at 12 months were significantly higher in the suture method group compared to the bipolar coagulation (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.83, -0.38, p = 0.003, I2 = 89, n = 3). The suture method also showed a lower decline rate at 3 months post-cystectomy compared to the bipolar coagulation group (WMD: -25.13%, 95% CI: -49.56 to -0.70, p = 0.04, I2 = 95%, n = 2). Overall, pregnancy rates were similar between the two groups. Between the bipolar coagulation and HSs group, serum AMH values at 3 months post-cystectomy were similar (WMD: -0.46, 95% CI: -1.04 to 0.13, p = 0.13, I2 = 0%, n = 3). However, the HSs group showed a less decline rate at 3 months post-cystectomy compared to the bipolar coagulation group (WMD: -17.02%, 95% CI: -22.81, -11.23, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%, n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the suture method and HSs may have potential benefits in the preservation of ovarian reserve over the bipolar coagulation method when cystectomy for ovarian endometrioma is performed.

Pathophysiology and Clinical Implications of Ovarian Endometriomas

Ovarian endometriomas affect many patients with endometriosis and have significant effects on quality of life, fertility, and risk of malignancy. Endometriomas range from small (1-3 cm), densely fibrotic cysts to large (20 cm or greater) cysts with varying degrees of fibrosis. Endometriomas are hypothesized to form from endometriotic invasion or metaplasia of functional cysts or alternatively from ovarian surface endometriosis that bleeds into the ovarian cortex. Different mechanisms of endometrioma formation may help explain the phenotypic variability observed among endometriomas. Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred first-line modality of diagnosis and treatment of endometriomas. Ovarian cystectomy is preferred over cyst ablation or sclerotherapy for enabling pathologic diagnosis, improving symptoms, preventing recurrence, and optimizing fertility outcomes. Cystectomy for small, densely adherent endometriomas is made challenging by dense fibrosis of the cyst capsule obliterating the plane with normal ovarian cortex, whereas cystectomy for large endometriomas can carry unique challenges as a result of adhesions between the cyst and pelvic structures. Preoperative and postoperative hormonal suppression can improve operative outcomes and decrease the risk of endometrioma recurrence. Whether the optimal management, fertility consequences, and malignant potential of endometriomas vary on the basis of size and phenotype remains to be fully explored.

The impact of ovarian endometrioma and endometriotic cystectomy on anti-Müllerian hormone, and antral follicle count: a contemporary critical appraisal of systematic reviews

Currently, three crucial questions regarding the reliability of ovarian reserve measures in women with ovarian endometrioma during the reproductive age are being discussed. Firstly, the effects of endometriotic cystectomy on short and long-term ovarian reserve. Secondly, the accuracy of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) in estimating ovarian reserve in these cases. Thirdly, the impact of endometrioma itself on the ovarian reserve over time in such cases. The purpose of the present review is to critically assess available systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have explored these questions. Nine eligible reviews were found following a systematic search on PubMed.com and similarly assessed. These reviews varied considerably regarding the level of evidence, as per an identical comprehensive scoring system. Moderate to high-quality evidence demonstrates that endometriotic cystectomy, by the stripping technique, adversely affects ovarian reserve in the short and long term, up to 9-18 months post-surgery. Damage to ovarian reserve was considerable but more pronounced in bilateral cases than unilateral cases, equivalent to 39.5% and 57.0%, respectively. Repeat endometriotic cystectomy is detrimental to ovarian reserve. The impact of endometrioma diameter on ovarian reserve before or after surgery is still unclear. Moderate to high-quality evidence, relying on simultaneous assessment of both ovarian reserve measures, shows that AMH is sensitive while AFC is not in cases undergoing ovarian cystectomy. AMH should be the biomarker of choice for counseling and managing women with endometrioma in their reproductive age, especially before surgery. While there is some evidence to show that endometrioma per se may harm ovarian reserve, this evidence is not robust, and there is good-quality evidence to challenge this notion. It is necessary to conduct further targeted RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses based on solid methodological grounds to increase the level of evidence, refine quantitative estimates, investigate open questions, and decrease heterogeneity.

Treatment of endometriomas: Surgical approaches and the impact on ovarian reserve, recurrence, and spontaneous pregnancy

Endometriomas may contribute to infertility and are associated with diminished ovarian reserve. Surgical management can damage the ovarian cortex and further diminish ovarian reserve. Surgical therapy of endometriomas can be achieved via cystectomy, ablation (electrosurgical, laser, or plasma energy), sclerotherapy, or oophorectomy. Each approach has varying effects on ovarian reserve, spontaneous pregnancy rates, and recurrence rates: Cystectomy is associated with a low recurrence rate but higher risk of diminished ovarian reserve; Ablation (with laser or plasma energy) appears to have minimal effect on ovarian reserve while also having low recurrence rates; Sclerotherapy is mixed in terms of effect on ovarian reserve as well as recurrence rates. Fertility preservation counseling is recommended for patients considering surgical management. The surgical approach selected should be tailored to each individual patient with respect to their fertility and therapeutic goals.

Anti-Müllerian hormone for screening, diagnosis, evaluation, and prediction: A systematic review and expert opinions

AIM

To present evidence-based recommendations for anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) measurement as an ovarian reserve test.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for the clinical utility of AMH was conducted in PubMed from its inception to August 2022 to identify studies, including meta-analyses, reviews, randomized controlled trials, and clinical trials, followed by an additional systematic search using keywords. Based on this evidence, an expert panel developed clinical questions (CQs).

RESULTS

A total of 1895 studies were identified and 95 articles were included to establish expert opinions subdivided into general population, infertility treatment, primary ovarian insufficiency, polycystic ovary syndrome, surgery, and oncofertility. We developed 13 CQs and 1 future research question with levels of evidence and recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the current systematic review covered the clinical utility of AMH including its screening, diagnosis, evaluation, and prediction. Although some clinical implications of AMH remain debatable, these expert opinions may help promote a better understanding of AMH and establish its clinical significance.

Reproductive surgery: revisiting its origins and role in the modern management of fertility

For years, reproductive surgery was the mainstay of reproductive care. With the evolution and ultimate success of in vitro fertilization (IVF), reproductive surgery became an adjuvant therapy, indicated mainly for severe symptoms or to enhance success rates with assisted reproductive technologies. As success rates for IVF have plateaued, and emerging data rekindles the enormous benefits of surgically correcting reproductive pathologies, there is renewed interest among reproductive surgeons in reviving research and surgical expertise in this area. In addition, new instrumentation and surgical techniques to preserve fertility have gained traction and will solidify the need to have skilled reproductive endocrinology and infertility surgeons in our practice.

Expectant, Medical, and Surgical Management of Ovarian Endometriomas

Management options for ovarian endometriomas include expectant management, medical treatment, surgical treatment, in vitro fertilization (IVF), or a combination of the above. The choice of management depends on many clinical parameters that should be taken into consideration, the first of which is the main presenting symptom. Most patients are today referred to medical therapy as a first option in the case of associated pain, and to IVF in the case of associated infertility. When both symptoms are present, usually surgery is the preferred approach. Recently, however, surgical excision of an ovarian endometrioma has been associated with a postoperative reduction in the ovarian reserve, and recent guidelines suggest that the clinician should caution the patient as to the possible damage to the ovarian reserve in the case of surgery. However, evidence has been published as to a possible detrimental effect of the ovarian endometrioma on the ovarian reserve even if expectant management is followed. In this review, the current evidence on the conservative management of ovarian endometriomas, with particular focus on the issue of the ovarian reserve, is evaluated, and the different surgical techniques for the treatment of ovarian endometriomas are discussed.