Factors increasing the detection rate of intrauterine lesions on hysteroscopy in infertile women with sonographically normal uterine cavities

Impact of Hysteroscopic Polypectomy on IVF Outcomes in Women with Unexplained Infertility

Objective: To assess the effect of hysteroscopic polypectomy on the in vitro fertilization (IVF) results in infertile women with at least one prior negative IVF outcome. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included women who had attended the "2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens" and "Iaso" Maternity Hospital from October 2019 to January 2023 for infertility treatment. The medical records of 345 women aged 18-45 years old without abnormal findings in hysterosalpingography (HSG) and with at least one previous failed IVF procedure were analyzed. The male factor was excluded, as well as a prior hysteroscopic removal of polyps. In 67 women, polyps were suspected during initial two-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) examination. The final sample of the study comprised 40 patients, in which endometrial polyps were removed by hysteroscopy with the use of resectoscope. All patients underwent ovarian stimulation and IVF in the consecutive cycle using a short GnRh antagonist protocol. Main Results: After hysteroscopic polypectomy, 29 (72.5%) out of 40 patients had a positive pregnancy result: 26 (65%) clinical and 3 (7.5%) biochemical pregnancies were documented. There was a statistically significant difference between the number of clinical pregnancies before and after polypectomy (p < 0.001), as well as between the total number of pregnancies (p < 0.001). Secondary Results: Women with positive outcome were significantly younger and had significantly lower FSH levels (p < 0.007). They also had significantly higher AMH (p < 0.009) and peak estradiol levels (p < 0.013) and yielded more M II oocytes (p < 0.009) and embryos (p < 0.002). Conclusions: Hysteroscopic polypectomy in women with a suspected endometrial polyp using 2D ultrasound and a history of prior failed IVF attempt improves IVF outcomes in terms of the clinical and total number of pregnancies.

Evidence-based guideline: unexplained infertility†

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management for couples presenting with unexplained infertility (UI), based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The evidence-based guideline on UI makes 52 recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of UI.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

UI is diagnosed in the absence of any abnormalities of the female and male reproductive systems after 'standard' investigations. However, a consensual standardization of the diagnostic work-up is still lacking. The management of UI is traditionally empirical. The efficacy, safety, costs, and risks of treatment options have not been subjected to robust evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for ESHRE guidelines. Following formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches, and assessments were undertaken. Papers written in English and published up to 24 October 2022 were evaluated.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the available evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline development group (GDG). Following stakeholder review of an initial draft, the final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This guideline aims to help clinicians provide the best care for couples with UI. As UI is a diagnosis of exclusion, the guideline outlined the basic diagnostic procedures that couples should/could undergo during an infertility work-up, and explored the need for additional tests. The first-line treatment for couples with UI was deemed to be IUI in combination with ovarian stimulation. The place of additional and alternative options for treatment of UI was also evaluated. The GDG made 52 recommendations on diagnosis and treatment for couples with UI. The GDG formulated 40 evidence-based recommendations-of which 29 were formulated as strong recommendations and 11 as weak-10 good practice points and two research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, one by moderate-quality evidence, nine by low-quality evidence, and 31 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in UI, a list of research recommendations was provided.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Most additional diagnostic tests and interventions in couples with UI have not been subjected to robust evaluation. For a large proportion of these tests and treatments, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required, and the results of future studies may result in the current recommendations being revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in the care of couples with UI, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The full guideline and a patient leaflet are available in www.eshre.eu/guideline/UI.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed by ESHRE, who funded the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline in collaboration with the Monash University led Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHIRL). The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives; all work was provided voluntarily. D.R. reports honoraria from IBSA and Novo Nordisk. B.A. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter, Organon and Intas Pharma; is part of the advisory board for Organon Turkey and president of the Turkish Society of Reproductive Medicine. S.B. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, the Ostetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore and the Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine; editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press; is part of the METAFOR and CAPE trials data monitoring committee. E.B. reports research grants from Roche diagnostics, Gedeon Richter and IBSA; speaker's fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Gedeon Richter, IBSA; E.B. is also a part of an Advisory Board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Abbott and Gedeon Richter. M.M. reports consulting fees from Mojo Fertility Ltd. R.J.N. reports research grant from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); consulting fees from Flinders Fertility Adelaide, VinMec Hospital Hanoi Vietnam; speaker's fees from Merck Australia, Cadilla Pharma India, Ferring Australia; chair clinical advisory committee Westmead Fertility and research institute MyDuc Hospital Vietnam. T.P. is a part of the Research Council of Finland and reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Novo Nordics and Sigrid Juselius foundation; consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter, Roche, Exeltis, Organon, Ferring and Korento patient organization; is a part of NFOG, AE-PCOS society and several Finnish associations. S.S.R. reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Organon, Theramex; consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD and Organon; speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Besins, Theramex, Gedeon Richter; travel support from Gedeon Richter; S.S.R. is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of TTRANSPORT and deputy of the ESHRE Special Interest Group on Safety and Quality in ART; stock or stock options from IVI Lisboa, Clínica de Reprodução assistida Lda; equipment/medical writing/gifts from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.K.S. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Pharmasure. HRV reports consulting and travel fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

Diagnostic Value of Ultrasonography Combined with Hysteroscopy in Intrauterine Space-Occupying Abnormalities

The aim of this study was to analyze the diagnostic significance of ultrasonography combined with hysteroscopy for intrauterine space-occupying abnormalities. A total of 99 patients with uterine space-occupying abnormalities treated in hospitals were enrolled. The patients were divided into three groups according to different disease types: the submucosal myoma group, endometrial polyp group, and placenta residue group, with 33 patients in each group. The differences and diagnostic effects in intrauterine ultrasound, hysteroscopic findings, and surgical histopathology were observed in each group. Outcome measures: it was to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of intrauterine ultrasound and angiography for intrauterine space-occupying lesions using surgical and pathological examination methods as the gold standard; the relationship between the location, number, size, appearance, and serosal layer of intrauterine lesions was clearly shown; the location, number, appearance, and echogenicity of space-occupying abnormalities under hysteroscopy were observed. The results showed that the diagnostic rates of endometrial polyps, submucous myoma, and residual placenta were 90.9%, 80.8%, and 72.7%, respectively. However, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of endometrial polyps were 90.0%, 66.7%, and 87.9%, respectively; those of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of endometrial polyps were 96.7%, 66.7%, and 93.9%, respectively; and combined diagnosis was 96.7%, 100.0%, 97.0%, 100.0%, and 75.0%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of submucous myoma of the uterus were 88.9%, 50.0%, and 81.8%, respectively; those of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of submucous myoma of the uterus were 96.3%, 83.3%, and 93.9%, respectively; and combined diagnosis was 100.0%, 83.3%, 97.0%, 96.4%, and 100.0%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of uteroplacental remnants were 87.5%, 66.7%, and 81.8%, respectively; those of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of uteroplacental remnants were 91.7%, 77.8%, and 87.9%, respectively; and combined diagnosis was 95.8%, 88.9%, 93.9%, 95.8%, and 88.9%. In summary, ultrasonography combined with hysteroscopy can improve the diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy for intrauterine space-occupying abnormalities.

Comparative retrospective study on transvaginal sonography versus office hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of endometrial pathology among different subgroups

BACKGROUND

Transvaginal sonography (TVS) and office hysteroscopy are considered essential diagnostic tool for the gynecologic everyday practice. Through the years equipment developments in both techniques along with cumulative experience gained by the gynecologists result in a disunity among clinicians in choosing optimal diagnostic approach with regards to endometrial pathology.

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of TVS versus office hysteroscopy (OHSC) in detecting endometrial pathology. Results were compared to available scientific evidence available among similar published studies.

METHODS

Comparative Retrospective study performed at the Endoscopic Unit, Department of Gynecology, University Hospital of Ioannina, Greece. A total of 2675 cases were collected for this study from January 1997 until August 2019. All cases recruited underwent a TVS followed by office hysteroscopy (OHSC) for various indications according to the local protocol. Endometrial samples from all cases were obtained and histology confirmed the diagnosis. Sonographic and hysteroscopic results were correlated with histologic reports to assess the diagnostic accuracy of both techniques.

RESULTS

In a total of 2675 cases recruited for this study, 23.2% were postmenopausal while the majority (76.7%) was of reproductive age. The commonest indication for hysteroscopy was abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) accounting for 29.7% of the cases. Overall, TVS demonstrated diagnostic accuracy of 84.7%% in detecting endometrial pathology, compared to 97.3% of OHSC. Sensitivity, specificity, positive prognostic value (PPV) and negative prognostic value (NPV) of TVS detecting endometrial pathology were 84.0, 86.8, 95.3 and 63.0%, respectively. The corresponding values for hysteroscopy were 98.9, 95.1, 98.4 and 93.9%, respectively. Diagnostic value of both techniques was estimated in 6 (six) additional subgroups: total sample with AUB, women of reproductive age, women of reproductive age with AUB, women of reproductive age with infertility issues, postmenopausal women and postmenopausal women suffering from postmenopausal bleeding (PMB). All values were calculated with regards to histologic findings as gold standard technique. All results were correlated with scientific evidence collected from the international literature.

CONCLUSION

Office hysteroscopy is a more reliable tool in detecting endometrial pathologies compared to TVS regardless of reproductive status or clinical presentation. TVS is likely to orientate and guide specialists on what to expect prior to an hysteroscopic intervention.