Laparoscopically assisted definitive treatment of severe endometriosis

Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.

WITHDRAWN: Laparoscopic surgery for subfertility associated with endometriosis

This review has been replaced by a review entitled 'Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis', published in issue 4 of The Cochrane Library, 2014.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is the presence of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity and is associated with pain and subfertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of painful symptoms and subfertility associated with endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group including searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and trial registries from inception to July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were selected in which the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery used to treat pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis was compared with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment or diagnostic laparoscopy only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data were performed independently by two review authors with disagreements resolved by a third review author. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included in the review. The studies randomised 973 participants experiencing pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis. Five RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision versus diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision versus diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision versus ablation. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation versus diagnostic laparoscopy and injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRHa) (goserelin) with add-back therapy. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly-described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and risk of attrition bias.Laparoscopic surgery was associated with decreased overall pain (measured as 'pain better or improved') compared with diagnostic laparoscopy, both at six months (odds ratio (OR) 6.58, 95% CI 3.31 to 13.10, 3 RCTs, 171 participants, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and at 12 months (OR 10.00, 95% CI 3.21 to 31.17, 1 RCT, 69 participants, low quality evidence). Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy, laparoscopic surgery was also associated with an increased live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.16, P = 0.007, 2 RCTs, 382 participants, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and increased clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86, P = 0.003, 3 RCTs, 528 participants, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). Two studies collected data on adverse events (including infection, vascular and visceral injury and conversion to laparotomy) and reported no events in either arm. Other studies did not report this outcome. The similar effect of laparoscopic surgery and diagnostic laparotomy on the rate of miscarriage per pregnancy was imprecise (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54, 2 studies, 112 women, moderate quality evidence).When laparoscopic ablation was compared with diagnostic laparoscopy plus medical therapy (GnRHa plus add-back therapy), more women in the ablation group reported that they were pain free at 12 months (OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 26.85, 1 RCT, 35 participants, low quality evidence).The difference between laparoscopic ablation and laparoscopic excision in the proportion of women reporting overall pain relief at 12 months on a VAS 0 to 10 pain scale was 0 (95% CI -1.22 to 1.22, P = 1.00, 1 RCT, 103 participants, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery to treat mild and moderate endometriosis reduces overall pain and increases live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates. There is low quality evidence that laparoscopic excision and ablation were similarly effective in relieving pain, although there was only one relevant study. More research is needed considering severe endometriosis, different types of pain associated with endometriosis (for example dysmenorrhoea (pain with menstruation)) and comparing laparoscopic interventions with holistic and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.

Laparoscopic surgery for subfertility associated with endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is the presence of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. It is variable in both its surgical appearance and clinical manifestation, often with poor correlation between the two. Surgical treatment of endometriosis aims to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore anatomy by the division of adhesions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of subfertility associated with endometriosis. The review aims to compare outcomes of laparoscopic surgical interventions compared to no treatment or medical treatment with regard to improved fertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of trials (June 2009), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1980 to June 2009), and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they were randomised and compared the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of subfertility associated with endometriosis versus other treatment modalities or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two studies were eligible for inclusion within the review. Both studies compared laparoscopic surgical treatment of minimal and mild endometriosis compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only. The recorded outcomes included live birth, pregnancy, fetal losses, and complications of surgery.

MAIN RESULTS

When combining live birth rate and ongoing pregnancy after 20 weeks, meta-analysis demonstrated an advantage of laparoscopic surgery when compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. The odds ratio (OR) was 1.64 (95% confidence interval (Cl) 1.05 to 2.57) in favour of laparoscopic surgery. Meta-analysis also demonstrated an advantage of laparoscopic surgery when compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only in terms of clinical pregnancy rates, with an OR of 1.66 (95% Cl 1.09 to 2.51) favouring laparoscopic surgery. The results still need to be interpreted with caution as Marcoux 1997 reported a large positive effect of surgery whereas Gruppo Italiano reported a small negative effect. When considering fetal losses, meta-analysis did not demonstrate an effect of laparoscopic surgery when compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. The OR was 1.33 (95% Cl 0.60 to 2.94) favouring diagnostic laparoscopy only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of subfertility related to minimal and mild endometriosis may improve future fertility.

Laparoscopic surgery for subfertility associated with endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is the presence of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. It is variable in both its surgical appearance and clinical manifestation often with poor correlation between the two. Surgical treatment of endometriosis aims to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore anatomy by division of adhesions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of subfertility associated with endometriosis. The review aims to compare outcomes of laparoscopic surgical interventions compared to no treatment or medical treatment with regard to improved fertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched Feb 2000), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966-July 2001), EMBASE (1980-July 2001), the National Research Register (Issue 1, 2000) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they were randomised and compared the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of subfertility associated with endometriosis versus other treatment modalities or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two studies had data appropriate for inclusion within the review. These studies compared laparoscopic surgical treatment of minimal and mild endometriosis compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only. The recorded outcomes included live birth, pregnancy, fetal losses and complications of surgery.

MAIN RESULTS

Meta-analysis of the two randomised trials show improvement in infertility associated with endometriosis with laparoscopic surgery. The largest trial (Marcoux 1997) clearly supports this outcome with an increased chance of pregnancy (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.24) and ongoing pregnancy rate after 20 weeks (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.22) but the smaller trial (Gruppo Italiano 1999) does not show benefit (pregnancy OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.88; livebirth OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.28). Combining ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates there was a statistically significant increase with surgery (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.57).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The use of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of minimal and mild endometriosis may improve success rates. The relevant trials have some methodological problems and further research in this area is needed.