Endometriosis-associated infertility: surgery or IVF?

Endometriosis and Adenomyosis: Modern Concepts of Their Clinical Outcomes, Treatment, and Management

Endometriosis and adenomyosis are complex gynecological conditions characterized by diverse clinical presentations, including superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), ovarian endometrioma (OMA), and deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). The hallmark features of these pathologies involve the manifestation of pain symptoms and infertility, and approximately 30% of patients are asymptomatic. Despite ongoing research, definitive treatments for these conditions remain elusive, and clinical management primarily revolves around medical or surgical interventions. Recent advancements in our understanding of the efficacy of various treatment modalities, including medical therapy and surgical interventions, have provided clinicians with valuable insights into pain relief and fertility preservation. This review aims to provide an updated overview of the latest literature on clinical outcomes, treatment options, and management strategies for different types of endometriosis. By synthesizing the newest available data, this review seeks to inform clinicians and guide decision making based on factors such as patients' symptom severity, childbearing desire, and overall health.

Effect of Oral Contraceptive Use in Relation to Fertile Years on the Risk of Endometriosis in Women with Primary Infertility: A Ten-Year Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis

Background and Objectives: Oral contraceptives (OCs) are usually used to treat endometriosis; however, the evidence is inconsistent about whether OC use in the past, when given to asymptomatic women, is protective against the development of future disease. We aimed to assess the relationship between the use of OCs and the likelihood of discovering endometriosis, considering the length of time under OCs during their fertile age. Materials and Methods: This was a monocentric retrospective cohort study in a tertiary-care University Hospital (Department of Human Reproduction, Division of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia) carried out from January 2012 to December 2022. Reproductive-aged women scheduled for laparoscopic surgery for primary infertility and subsequent histopathological diagnosis of endometriosis were compared to women without an endometriosis diagnosis. They were classified based on the ratio of years of OC use to fertile years in four subgroups: never, <25%, between 25 and 50%, and >50. Results: In total, 1923 women (390 with and 1533 without endometriosis) were included. Previous OC use was higher in those with endometriosis than controls (72.31% vs. 58.64%; p = 0.001). Overall, previous OC usage was not related to histopathological diagnosis of endometriosis (aOR 1.06 [95% CI 0.87-1.29]). Women who used OCs for less than 25% of their fertile age had reduced risk of rASRM stage III endometriosis (aOR 0.50 [95% CI 0.26-0.95]; p = 0.036) or superficial implants (aOR 0.88 [95% CI 0.58-0.95]; p = 0.040). No significant results were retrieved for other rASRM stages. Using OCs for <25%, between 25 and 50%, or >50% of fertile age did not increase the risk of developing superficial endometriosis, endometriomas, or DIE. Conclusions: When OCs are used at least once, histological diagnoses of endometriosis are not increased. A protective effect of OCs when used for less than 25% of fertile age on superficial implants may be present. Prospective research is needed to corroborate the findings due to constraints related to the study's limitations.

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.

Deep Endometriosis and Infertility: What Is the Impact of Surgery?

In women with deep endometriosis, the spontaneous fertility rate might range from 2 to 10%. The optimal management of these women is still an area of debate. Therefore, this review aims to explore the literature on the impact of deep endometriosis surgery on reproductive outcomes and pregnancy rates in women with and without prior infertility. A total of 392 articles were identified through database searching. Twenty-three studies were eligible to be included in the review. A total of 1548 women were identified, 814 of whom became pregnant, with a mean pregnancy rate of 52.6% (95% CI 49.7-63%). Our review suggests that surgery may improve fertility outcomes. Due to the variability in the studies, it is impossible to stratify fertility outcomes of surgery by the localization of deep endometriosis. More investigations are needed to determine whether surgical management should be first-intention or limited to the failure of medically assisted reproduction treatment.

Infertility workup: identifying endometriosis

Endometriosis was classically diagnosed during diagnostic laparoscopies, which used to be routinely performed up until a decade ago or so. This practice fitted with the long-held belief that surgery was the gold standard for diagnosing endometriosis. Today, the abandon of routine diagnostic laparoscopies-in favor of assisted reproductive technology-first therapeutic approaches-has created a void for diagnosing endometriosis. Modern-day imaging techniques-ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging-when used with a systematic approach have offered a reliable replacement option for diagnosing endometriosis. In infertility, endometriosis should be identified or excluded on the basis of past history or confirmation or exclusion suspicion on the basis of history and/or physical examination.

Does endometrioma surgery affect assisted reproductive technologies cycle outcome in patients with decreased ovarian reserve diagnosed by Bologna criteria?

Objectives:

Data regarding whether the assisted reproductive technologies (ART) outcome of patients with decreased ovarian reserve (DOR) secondary to an endometrioma surgery differs from that of patients with DOR secondary to other etiologies is limited. The aim of this study was to compare the ART outcomes of DOR patients diagnosed by Bologna criteria secondary to a previous endometrioma surgery with DOR patients without a history of an endometrioma surgery.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in the assisted reproduction unit of a tertiary research and education hospital. Medical records of the patients with DOR were reviewed retrospectively. Group I included 23 cycles of DOR patients secondary to a previous endometrioma surgery and Group II consisted of 260 cycles of DOR patients without a history of endometrioma surgery.

Results:

No significant difference was demonstrated between groups regarding demographic features except for the age (32 (24–41) in Group I vs 35 (23–47) in Group II, p = 0.031). The data comparing the controlled ovarian stimulation parameters and ART outcomes showed similar results in both groups. No statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding pregnancy rates per transfer (23% vs 22.2 %) and per cycle (13% vs 15.4%) ( p > 0.05).

Conclusion:

Cycle outcomes of DOR patients secondary to an endometrioma surgery did not differ from that of DOR without an endometrioma surgery history.