Impact of Endometriosis Surgery on In Vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Outcomes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Endometriosis-related infertility remains a therapeutic challenge. A burning issue in this field of research is determining whether pre-assisted reproductive technology (ART) surgery may be of some benefit in terms of reproductive outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) and/or live birth rates (LBR) in patients who underwent endometriosis surgery before ART (IVF/ICSI) in comparison with patients who underwent first-line ART (IVF/ICSI). Searches were conducted from January 1990 to June 2021 on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library using the following search terms: endometriosis, surgery, reproductive outcomes, and IVF/ICSI. The primary outcomes were OPR or LBR. A total of 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No statistically significant differences in LBR [0.91[0.63, 1.30]; I2 = 66%; n = 11], OPR [1.28[0.66, 2.49]; I2 = 60%; n = 3], and early pregnancy loss rate [0.88[0.62, 1.25]; I2 = 0%; n = 7] per cycle were found when comparing patients who underwent endometriosis surgery before IVF/ICSI and those who did not. After the exclusion of the studies with high risks of bias, the LBR per cycle was significantly reduced in the case of surgical treatment before IVF/ICSI [0.53[0.33, 0.86]; I2 = 30%; n = 4]. These data urge the clinician to carefully weigh the pros and cons before referring infertile patients with endometriosis to surgery before IVF, highlighting the key role of multidisciplinary referral centers.

Impact of endometriosis and its staging on assisted reproduction outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the presence or severity of endometriosis affects the outcome of assisted reproductive techniques (ART).

METHODS

In this systematic review, all studies comparing the outcome of ART in women with and those without endometriosis, or at different stages of the disease, were considered eligible. We used either risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) and their 95%CIs for comparisons. The primary outcome was live birth; the secondary outcome was clinical pregnancy. Miscarriage and the number of oocytes retrieved were examined as additional outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 92 studies in the review and 78 in the meta-analysis: 20,167 women with endometriosis were compared with 121,931 women without endometriosis, and 1703 women with Stage-III/IV endometriosis were compared with 2227 women with Stage-I/II endometriosis. The following results were observed for the comparison of women with endometriosis vs women without endometriosis: live birth, RR = 0.99 (95%CI, 0.92-1.06); clinical pregnancy, RR = 0.95 (95%CI, 0.89-1.02); miscarriage, RR = 1.31 (95%CI, 1.07-1.59); number of oocytes retrieved, MD = -1.56 (95%CI, -2.05 to -1.08). The following results were observed for the comparison of women with Stage-III/IV vs Stage-I/II endometriosis: live birth, RR = 0.94 (95%CI, 0.80-1.11); clinical pregnancy, RR = 0.90 (95%CI, 0.82-1.00); miscarriage, RR = 0.99 (95%CI, 0.73-1.36); number of oocytes retrieved, MD = -1.03 (95%CI, -1.67 to -0.39).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with endometriosis undergoing ART have practically the same chance of achieving clinical pregnancy and live birth as do women with other causes of infertility. No relevant difference was observed in the chance of achieving clinical pregnancy and live birth following ART when comparing Stage-III/IV with Stage-I/II endometriosis. The quality of the evidence for the additional examined outcomes was very low, not allowing meaningful conclusions to be drawn.