The Effect of Laparoscopic Endometrioma Surgery on Anti-Müllerian Hormone: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

The impact of ovarian endometrioma and endometriotic cystectomy on anti-Müllerian hormone, and antral follicle count: a contemporary critical appraisal of systematic reviews

Currently, three crucial questions regarding the reliability of ovarian reserve measures in women with ovarian endometrioma during the reproductive age are being discussed. Firstly, the effects of endometriotic cystectomy on short and long-term ovarian reserve. Secondly, the accuracy of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) in estimating ovarian reserve in these cases. Thirdly, the impact of endometrioma itself on the ovarian reserve over time in such cases. The purpose of the present review is to critically assess available systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have explored these questions. Nine eligible reviews were found following a systematic search on PubMed.com and similarly assessed. These reviews varied considerably regarding the level of evidence, as per an identical comprehensive scoring system. Moderate to high-quality evidence demonstrates that endometriotic cystectomy, by the stripping technique, adversely affects ovarian reserve in the short and long term, up to 9-18 months post-surgery. Damage to ovarian reserve was considerable but more pronounced in bilateral cases than unilateral cases, equivalent to 39.5% and 57.0%, respectively. Repeat endometriotic cystectomy is detrimental to ovarian reserve. The impact of endometrioma diameter on ovarian reserve before or after surgery is still unclear. Moderate to high-quality evidence, relying on simultaneous assessment of both ovarian reserve measures, shows that AMH is sensitive while AFC is not in cases undergoing ovarian cystectomy. AMH should be the biomarker of choice for counseling and managing women with endometrioma in their reproductive age, especially before surgery. While there is some evidence to show that endometrioma per se may harm ovarian reserve, this evidence is not robust, and there is good-quality evidence to challenge this notion. It is necessary to conduct further targeted RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses based on solid methodological grounds to increase the level of evidence, refine quantitative estimates, investigate open questions, and decrease heterogeneity.

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.

The Efficacy and Safety of Transvaginal Ethanol Sclerotherapy in the Treatment of Endometrial Cysts-A Systematic Review

Endometriosis, as a chronic disorder that is a source of severe pain ailments and infertility, requires a comprehensive therapeutic approach. Sclerotherapy, consisting of the administration of sclerosing agents into the cyst, is a constantly evolving minimally invasive treatment method for this disease. Hence, the main objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of its most often used variant, transvaginal ethanol sclerotherapy, on endometriosis-related symptoms, endometrial cyst recurrence rate, ovarian reserve, assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes, and pregnancy outcomes, as well as to assess potential complications resulting from this treatment. This systematic review was undertaken using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases on 24 November 2023. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed with the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the revised Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials. From the 1141 records obtained from all databases, 16 studies have been included in this review. The use of ethanol sclerotherapy was characterized by a low rate of post-procedural complications. The recurrence rate of endometrial cysts after the procedure depended on the ethanol instillation time within the cyst. Although ethanol sclerotherapy had negligible influence on ovarian reserves when compared to laparoscopic cystectomy, the effects of both these methods on pregnancy outcomes were comparable. This review identifies that sclerotherapy is safe, provides significant relief of symptoms, and does not impair the reproductive potential of the patients.

Endometriosis and IVF treatment outcomes: unpacking the process

Advanced endometriosis is associated with a reduction of IVF success. Surgical damage to the ovarian reserve following the excision of endometriomas has been claimed as a critical factor in the explanation of this detrimental effect. However, it is generally inferred that other mechanisms might also hamper IVF success in affected women. They include diminished responsiveness to ovarian stimulation, altered steroidogenesis, a decline in oocyte quality, reduced fertilization and embryo development, and impaired implantation. To navigate these limitations, we scrutinized available literature for studies specifically designed to address distinct phases of the IVF process. Utmost consideration was given to intra-patient ovarian response comparisons in women with unilateral endometriomas and to studies applying a meticulous matching to control confounders. The following observations have been drawn: 1) endometriosis has a negligible impact on ovarian response. A slight reduction in stimulation response can only be observed for endometriomas larger than 4 cm. Follicular steroidogenesis is unaffected; 2) oocyte quality is not hampered. Fertilization rates are similar, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is not justified. Embryonic development is uncompromised, with no increase in aneuploidy rate; 3) endometrial receptivity is either unaffected or only slightly impacted. In conclusion, our study suggests that, aside from the well-known negative effect on ovarian reserve from excisional endometrioma surgeries, endometriosis does not significantly affect IVF outcomes.

Endometriosis-associated infertility: From pathophysiology to tailored treatment

Despite the clinically recognized association between endometriosis and infertility, the mechanisms implicated in endometriosis-associated infertility are not fully understood. Endometriosis is a multifactorial and systemic disease that has pleiotropic direct and indirect effects on reproduction. A complex interaction between endometriosis subtype, pain, inflammation, altered pelvic anatomy, adhesions, disrupted ovarian reserve/function, and compromised endometrial receptivity as well as systemic effects of the disease define endometriosis-associated infertility. The population of infertile women with endometriosis is heterogeneous, and diverse patients' phenotypes can be observed in the clinical setting, thus making difficult to establish a precise diagnosis and a single mechanism of endometriosis related infertility. Moreover, clinical management of infertility associated with endometriosis can be challenging due to this heterogeneity. Innovative non-invasive diagnostic tools are on the horizon that may allow us to target the specific dysfunctional alteration in the reproduction process. Currently the treatment should be individualized according to the clinical situation and to the suspected level of impairment. Here we review the etiology of endometriosis related infertility as well as current treatment options, including the roles of surgery and assisted reproductive technologies.

Oocyte Cryopreservation in Patients with Endometriosis: Current Knowledge and Number Needed to Treat

The rise of oocytes cryopreservation (OOC) in assisted reproductive techniques allows fertility preservation (FP) in an increasing number of indications. Endometriosis, a highly prevalent disease, potentially impairing ovarian reserve, seems, therefore, an interesting indication for it. The purpose of this study is to summarize the available evidence concerning FP by OOC in women with endometriosis and to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT). In total, 272 articles related to this topic were identified in PubMed. Eight studies were eligible for the review. In order to shed some light, a SWOT analysis was performed and the argument pros and cons were developed. The NNT calculated of OOC was 16, meaning that 16 women need to perform an OOC for one of them to have a child that she would not have had without this technique. In conclusion, OOC must be discussed with patients who suffer from endometriosis since it is an effective technique of FP, which can allow these patients to succeed a pregnancy that they otherwise would not have achieved. Nevertheless, it should not be performed in all patients as there is still a lack of robust socio-economic and risk–benefit data.