Preservation of Ovarian Reserve and Hemostasis during Ovarian Cystectomy: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Impact of haemostasis methods during ovarian cystectomy on ovarian reserve: a pairwise and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Haemostasis during ovarian cystectomy is reported to damage the ovarian reserve, but the comparative impacts of three haemostasis methods (bipolar energy, suture and haemostatic sealant) on ovarian reserve in patients with ovarian cysts are not well known.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched from the date of inception of the database to June 2022 for literature exploring the impact of haemostasis methods during ovarian cystectomy on ovarian reserve. A traditional meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using Stata and GemTC software.

RESULTS

The direct meta-analysis comparison indicated that the mean postoperative reduction of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level was significantly higher in the electrocoagulation (bipolar) group than suture and haemostatic sealant group, both in the overall group and subgroup of women with ovarian endometrioma. In NMA, the reduction of postoperative AMH levels in the electrocoagulation (bipolar) group was higher than the suture group at 6 months with a statistical significance, and at 1, 3 and 12 months without a significant difference. The difference in the postoperative decrease of AMH level did not reach statistical significance between suture and sealant, coagulation and haemostatic sealant. The comprehensive ranking results revealed that suture treatment was, with the highest probability, beneficial to the protection of the ovarian reserve.

CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient research to detect the optimal haemostasis method for ovarian reserve preservation in ovarian cystectomy. Nevertheless, haemostasis by electrocoagulation (bipolar) should be avoided when possible, and the suture might be considered as the best choice.

Preservation of the ovarian reserve and hemostasis during laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy by a hemostatic agent versus suturing for patients with ovarian endometriosis: study protocol for randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial (PRAHA-2 trial)

Background

Endometriosis (EMS) can be implanted everywhere, especially in pelvic organs. EMS can be asymptomatic, but it can result in pelvic pain and infertility by inducing local inflammation and pelvic adhesion. The prevalence of EMS is about 10% in reproductive-age women and higher in women with pelvic pain or infertility. For young patients with ovarian EMS, laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy is effective in relieving pelvic pain and preventing local recurrence. However, there is a concern that the ovarian reserve would decrease after the operation because of the removal of a part of the normal ovarian tissue and thermal damage during hemostasis, which depends on the types of hemostasis such as bipolar electrocoagulation, suturing, and the use of a hemostatic agent. In this study, we aim to evaluate the protective effect for the ovarian reserve and hemostasis between a hemostatic agent and suturing during laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy for patients with ovarian EMS.

Methods

This study is a randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial, where a total of 90 patients with ovarian EMS will be randomly assigned to the experimental (hemostatic agent) and control (suturing) groups. In the control group, a barbed suture will be applied for hemostasis, whereas a hemostatic agent will be applied in the experimental group. If two methods are insufficient, bipolar electrocoagulation will be applied for complete hemostasis. As the primary endpoint, the reduction rate of serum anti- Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels reflecting the ovarian reserve will be compared between the two groups 12 weeks after surgery. As secondary endpoints, we will compare the reduction rate of AMH level 48 weeks after surgery, the time required to complete hemostasis, the success rate of hemostasis within 10 min, and adverse events associated with operation.

Discussion

We expect that the protective effect for the ovarian reserve and hemostasis may be comparable between the two methods, suggesting that a hemostatic agent may be preferred considering that it is easy to use during laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04643106. Registered on 22 November 2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05431-1.