Fertility Outcome after CO2 Laser Vaporization versus Cystectomy in Women with Ovarian Endometrioma: A Comparative Study

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.

Laser vaporization compared with other surgical techniques in women with ovarian endometrioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes after laparoscopic cystectomy versus laser vaporization in women of reproductive age with ovarian endometrioma.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Our systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021281781) and was done according to the PRISMA 2020 checklist. Studies (published until October 2021) were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (key words "cystectomy", "laser vaporization", and "endometrioma"). The search was conducted independently by two investigators (L.P. and S.I.). Inclusion criteria were: women of reproductive age undergoing surgery for symptomatic endometriomas larger than 30 mm. The exclusion criteria were: women who undergo conservative treatment. Outcomes were: risk ratio for recurrence, ovarian reserve and pregnancy rates. The studies included were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized clinical trials (prospective controlled, prospective cohort, retrospective studies, and other types of studies) that included a minimum of 10 patients and written in English. Tools recommended by the Cochrane Society achieved risk-of-bias assessment.

RESULTS

Totally, 874 studies were found, 9 studies were included in qualitative synthesis (822 patients). All the authors compared the efficacy and safety of cystectomy or laser vaporization in reproductive-aged women with ovarian endometrioma. The overall risk of bias for the randomized trials was 80% 'some concerns' and 20% 'low', and for the cohort studies, 50% 'some concerns' and 50% 'low'. The primary meta-analysis focused on recurrence rates (4 studies included) with no statistically significant differences found between these two interventions (RR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.21, P = 0.13). The next meta-analysis estimated antral follicle count (3 studies) which was significantly lower in cystectomy group (RR = - 2.56, 95% CI - 3.71 to - 1.42, P < 0.0001). Pregnancy rates were analyzed in 3 studies with no statistically significant difference (RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14, P = 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no statistical difference in the recurrence rate and pregnancy rates, but the antral follicle count was higher in the laser vaporization group. However, we need more clinical trials to make stronger recommendations.

Minimally invasive surgery for ovarian endometriosis as a mean of improving fertility: Cystectomy vs. CO2 fiber laser ablation what do we know so far?

Minimally invasive surgery emerged in the 1980s as a safe and effective technique which requires smaller incisions and, usually, a shorter hospital stay compared to traditional surgery. Since then, minimally invasive surgery has expanded in many surgical specialties. One of its newest application in gynecology stands in the infertility management of young women with unexplained infertility or suspected endometriosis. In these cases, laparoscopy allows to diagnose and treat the disease aiming to increase at best the chances of spontaneous pregnancy or trough assisted reproductive technology. Nowadays, minimally invasive surgical approach of ovarian endometriosis consists of either laparoscopic cystectomy or ablative techniques such as laparoscopic CO2 fiber laser vaporization. Although cystectomy represents the gold standard according to the latest Cochrane review, some endometriosis experts are worried about its detrimental effect on healthy ovarian parenchyma and suggest preferring a less aggressive approach such as CO2 fiber laser vaporization. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the available evidences about the impact of the two surgical procedures on ovarian reserve markers and pregnancy outcome.

Pregnancy rate following endometriomas management by ablation using plasma energy, cystectomy and drainage: A three-arm comparative study

OBJECTIVE

To compare differences in the postoperative pregnancy rate in women seeking to conceive and presenting with endometriomas larger than 3 cm in diameter, which were managed by ablation using plasma energy, cystectomy, or simple drainage.

METHODS

A retrospective three-arm comparative study based on prospective collection of data evaluating 363 patients, undergoing endometrioma cystectomy, ablation using plasma energy, or simple drainage.

RESULTS

In this series, 204 (56.2%) patients underwent endometrioma ablation using plasma energy, 121 (33.3%) received cystectomy, and 38 (10.5%) had a simple drainage. Postoperative follow up was 50 ± 26 months. Overall postoperative pregnancy rate was 60.3%. The probability of being pregnant after cystectomy, ablation, and drainage was respectively 27%, 32%, and 16% at 12 months, with a statistically significant difference between pregnancy rates among the three arms (P = 0.015). Simple drainage was associated with a probability of conception over 50% after 2 years, mainly based on postoperative assisted reproductive technology.

CONCLUSIONS

We reveal good postoperative pregnancy rate after ablation using plasma energy or cystectomy for endometriomas. Surgical management should be carefully considered in women with endometriomas and pregnancy intention, because the postoperative pregnancy rate may be compared with that observed after first-line assisted reproductive technology management.

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.

Three Types of Endometriosis: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Treatment. State of the Art

At present, there is no curative treatment for endometriosis. Medical management and surgical treatment do not provide long-term relief. A detailed understanding of its pathophysiology is mandatory in order to facilitate both the diagnosis and treatment. The delay that typically precedes proper diagnosis (6 to 7 years) is probably one of the most challenging aspects of endometriosis management. In 2012, the total cost per woman due to endometriosis was estimated to be 9579€ per year in a multicenter study across the USA and Europe. According to their physiopathology and their localization, ectopic endometrial lesions, consisting of endometrial glands and stroma, can be divided into three different types: superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), ovarian endometrioma (OMA), and deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). The following paper aims to review the available data in the literature on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of different types of endometriosis.

Surgery versus IVF for the treatment of infertility associated to ovarian and deep endometriosis (SVIDOE: Surgery Versus IVF for Deep and Ovarian Endometriosis). Clinical protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

The management of endometriosis-related infertility is still a challenging issue. Women can be managed with either surgery or in vitro fertilization (IVF). The decision is tailored to the patients considering pros and cons of both approaches. Surgery might increase the chances of natural conception and relieve symptoms. IVF may be more effective, but costs are higher and unoperated women face some peculiar additional risks during the procedure and pregnancy. The unavailability of randomized trials comparing the two strategies hampers the possibility to provide precise estimates. This Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) aims at filling this gap. This is a multicenter, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial with parallel groups and allocation 1:1. Three Italian Academic Infertility Units will be involved. Main inclusion criteria are infertility for more than one year, age less than 40 years and a sonographic diagnosis of endometriosis (ovarian endometriomas or deep peritoneal lesions). Previous IVF and previous surgery for endometriosis are exclusion criteria. Women will be randomized to either surgery and then natural pregnancy seeking or a standard program of three IVF cycles. The primary aim is the comparison of live birth rate between the two groups (IVF versus surgery) within one year of randomization. The secondary aim is the evaluation of cost-effective profile of the two interventions. The present study can influence the clinical practice of infertility treatment in women with endometriosis. From a public health perspective, information on the more cost-effective clinical management strategy would consent a wiser allocation of resources.

Trial registration:NCT04743167, registered on 8 February 2021.