Office microlaparoscopic ovarian drilling (OMLOD) versus conventional laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) for women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Clinical study on laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery and transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of benign ovarian tumours and its influence on ovarian functions

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore the influence of traditional laparoscopic surgery and transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery on ovarian function in patients with benign ovarian tumours.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-four patients with benign ovarian tumours who were treated in our hospital from January 2020 to June 2021 were selected and randomly divided into two groups, with 22 cases in each group according to random number table. The conventional group was treated with conventional laparoscopic surgery, while the modified group was treated with transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery. The measurement method was t -test, and the enumeration method was two tests. The clinical operation-related indicators, ovarian function (follicle-stimulating hormone, E 2 and luteinising hormone), complication incidence, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and landscaping satisfaction scores of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in complications and operation duration between the two groups ( P > 0.05). After treatment, the ovarian function indexes and beautification satisfaction scores of the modified group were significantly superior to those of the conventional group ( P < 0.05). Besides, the intraoperative bleeding volume, post-operative exhaust time, hospital stay and three-dimensional VAS scores on day 1 and day 3 after surgery of the modified group were lower than those of the conventional group ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian tumours has a significant clinical effect, which can effectively reduce bleeding during the operation, improve ovarian function, relieve surgical pain, promote rapid post-operative recovery and improve patients' satisfaction with landscaping. It is worthy of clinical application.

Ovarian Drilling: Back to the Future

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the leading cause of anovulatory infertility. The complex metabolic dysregulation at the base of this syndrome often renders infertility management challenging. Many pharmacological strategies have been applied for the induction of ovulation with a non-negligible rate of severe complications such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies. Ovarian drilling (OD) is currently being adopted as a second-line treatment, to be performed in case of medical therapy. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD), the contemporary version of ovarian wedge resection, is considered effective for gonadotropins in terms of live birth rates, but without the risks of iatrogenic complications in gonadotropin therapy. Its endocrinal effects are longer lasting and, after the accomplishment of this procedure, ovarian responsiveness to successive ovulation induction agents is enhanced. Traditional LOD, however, is burdened by the potential risks of iatrogenic adhesions and decreased ovarian reserve and, therefore, should only be considered in selected cases. To overcome these limits, novel tailored and mini-invasive approaches, which are still waiting for wide acceptance, have been introduced, although their role is still not well-clarified and none of them have provided enough evidence in terms of efficacy and safety.

Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by both metabolic and reproductive disorders, and affects 5% to 15% of women of reproductive age. Different western medicines have been proposed for PCOS-related subfertility, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitisers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) have also been used for subfertility caused by PCOS for decades, and are expected to become an alternative treatment for subfertile women with PCOS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, from inception to 2 June 2020. In addition, we searched three trials registries, the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHM versus placebo, no treatment or conventional (western) therapies for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with 609 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (EE/CPA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low. None of the included studies reported the primary outcome, live birth rate. Most studies reported the secondary outcomes, and only one study reported data on adverse events. In trials that compared CHM to clomiphene (with or without LOD in both study arms), we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 3.19; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 140 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 21.5%, the chance following CHM would vary between 14.7% and 46.7%. No study reported data on adverse events. When CHM plus clomiphene was compared to clomiphene (with or without EE/CPA), there was low certainty evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 3.06, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.55; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 470 participants; low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 31.5%, the chance following CHM plus clomiphene would vary between 48.5% and 67.7%. No data were reported on adverse events. In trials that compared CHM plus follicle aspiration and ovulation induction to follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.68; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction is assumed to be 29.2%, the chance following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would vary between 15.9% and 70%. Reported adverse events included severe luteinised unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence) or multiple pregnancy (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). These results suggest that if the chances of LUFS, OHSS, and multiple pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction are assumed to be 8.3%, 4.2%, and 8.3% respectively, the chances following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would be 0.5% to 35.8%, 0% to 26.3% and 0.5% to 35.8% respectively.  In trials that compared CHM plus LOD to LOD alone, we are uncertain if CHM improves pregnancy rates (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; 1 study, 30 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following LOD is assumed to be 40%, the chance following CHM with LOD would vary between 32.4% and 91.9%. No data were reported on adverse events. We are uncertain of the results in the comparison groups for all outcomes. The certainty of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS. No data are available on live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates for there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However, we find that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates, but there is very limited, low certainty evidence for this outcome. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe. In the future, well-designed, carefully conducted RCTs are needed, with a particular focus on the live birth rate and other safety indexes.

Molecular Mechanisms of Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling and Its Therapeutic Effects in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrinopathy, characterized by chronic anovulation, hyperandrogenism, and multiple small subcapsular cystic follicles in the ovary during ultrasonography, and affects 5-10% of women of reproductive age. PCOS is frequently associated with insulin resistance (IR) accompanied by compensatory hyperinsulinemia and, therefore, presents an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). The pathophysiology of PCOS is unclear, and many hypotheses have been proposed. Among these hypotheses, IR and hyperandrogenism may be the two key factors. The first line of treatment in PCOS includes lifestyle changes and body weight reduction. Achieving a 5-15% body weight reduction may improve IR and PCOS-associated hormonal abnormalities. For women who desire pregnancy, clomiphene citrate (CC) is the front-line treatment for ovulation induction. Twenty five percent of women may fail to ovulate spontaneously after three cycles of CC treatment, which is called CC-resistant PCOS. For CC-resistant PCOS women, there are many strategies to improve ovulation rate, including medical treatment and surgical approaches. Among the various surgical approaches, one particular surgical method, called laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD), has been proposed as an alternative treatment. LOD results in an overall spontaneous ovulation rate of 30-90% and final pregnancy rates of 13-88%. These benefits are more significant for women with CC-resistant PCOS. Although the intra- and post-operative complications and sequelae are always important, we believe that a better understanding of the pathophysiological changes and/or molecular mechanisms after LOD may provide a rationale for this procedure. LOD, mediated mainly by thermal effects, produces a series of morphological and biochemical changes. These changes include the formation of artificial holes in the very thick cortical wall, loosening of the dense and hard cortical wall, destruction of ovarian follicles with a subsequently decreased amount of theca and/or granulosa cells, destruction of ovarian stromal tissue with the subsequent development of transient but purulent and acute inflammatory reactions to initiate the immune response, and the continuing leakage or drainage of "toxic" follicular fluid in these immature and growth-ceased pre-antral follicles. All these factors contribute to decreasing local and systemic androgen levels, the following apoptosis process with these pre-antral follicles to atresia; the re-starting of normal follicular recruitment, development, and maturation, and finally, the normalization of the "hypothalamus-pituitary-ovary" axis and subsequent spontaneous ovulation. The detailed local and systematic changes in PCOS women after LOD are comprehensively reviewed in the current article.

Variation of Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling for Clomiphene Citrate-resistant Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Infertility: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate novel surgical variations of laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) and compare with standard bilateral LOD.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched, including Cochrane database, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Virtual Health Library, OpenSIGLE, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and The Chinese Clinical Trial Register in February 2019.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating LOD for patients with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome and infertility and reporting reproductive outcomes, surgical complications, serum indexes, menses resumption, and ultrasound results were included. Quality and risk of bias were evaluated by 2 authors, respectively.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 20 RCTs with 1615 patients were included. Evaluation of the quality of evidence for each study was based on each study's limitations of 5 outcome domains described by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and found to be moderate to very low. Live births were only reported by 4 studies. Unilateral LOD did not differ with bilateral LOD in reproductive outcomes, such as pregnancy (p = .11, I² = 75%), ovulation (p = .08, I² = 0%), miscarriage (p = .61), and menstruation resumption (p = .06). There was insufficient evidence regarding efficacy and safety of novel methods of LOD, such as transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (1 RCT) and micro-LOD (3 RCTs). Evidence regarding the suitable number of ovarian punctures, duration of drilling, and antimüllerian hormone or antral follicle numbers following LOD were inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral LOD seems to be suitable replacement for conventional bilateral LOD for clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome, although more studies involving long-term reproductive efficacy, adverse events, and varying forms of LOD are warranted.

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I² = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I² = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I² = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.

Is Endometriosis More Common and More Severe Than It Was 30 Years Ago?

OBJECTIVE

Current estimates of endometriosis prevalence and incidence are highly variable, leading to uncertainty regarding true endometriosis frequency or validity of quantified changes over time. We present a comprehensive review of the prevalence, incidence, and stage of endometriosis worldwide as reported over the past 30 years.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic search of observational studies using the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases to identify research papers published in English between January 1989 and June 2019. Search terminologies were limited to titles containing endometriosis and prevalence or incidence, or epidemiology, or frequency, or occurrence, or statistics.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for study eligibility, and data from included studies were abstracted.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Overall, 69 studies describing the prevalence and/or incidence of endometriosis met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 26 studies involved general population samples, 17 of which were from regional/national hospitals or insurance claims systems. The other 43 studies were conducted in single clinic or hospital settings. Prevalence estimates for endometriosis widely varied from 0.2% to 71.4% depending on the population sampled. The prevalence reported in general population studies ranged from 0.7% to 8.6%, whereas that reported in single clinic- or hospital-based studies ranged from 0.2% to 71.4%. When defined by indications for diagnosis, endometriosis prevalence ranged from 15.4% to 71.4% among women with chronic pelvic pain, 9.0% to 68.0% among women presenting with infertility, and 3.7% to 43.3% among women undergoing tubal sterilization. A meta-regression was conducted with year as the predictor of prevalence. No trend across time was observed among "general population in country/region" studies (β = 0.04, p = .12) or among "single hospital or clinic" studies (β = -0.02, p = .34); however, a decrease over time was observed among general population studies abstracted from health systems or insurance systems (β = -0.10, p = .005).

CONCLUSION

As with all human studies, population sampling and study design matter. Heterogeneity of inclusion and diagnostic criteria and selection bias overwhelmingly account for variability in endometriosis prevalence estimated across the literature. Thus, it is difficult to conclude if the lack of observed change in frequency and distribution of endometriosis over the past 30 years is valid.

The Prevalence of Incidental Endometriosis in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling for Clomiphene-Resistant Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis

To evaluate the incidence of endometriosis in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients who did not present with any endometriosis symptoms and underwent laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) for clomiphene citrate (CC) resistance, 225 and 630 women with CC-resistant PCOS without classic endometriosis symptoms were included in a retrospective study and a meta-analysis, respectively. All women underwent LOD. The main outcome parameter was the prevalence of incidental endometriosis. Laparoscopy revealed endometriosis in 38/225 (16.9%) women (revised American Fertility Society (rAFS) stage I: 33/38, 86.8%; rAFS stage II: 5/38, 13.2%). When women with CC-resistant PCOS without endometriosis were compared, lower body mass index (BMI) and lower 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels were associated with the presence of endometriosis at laparoscopy (odds ratios (OR): 0.872, 95% confidence intervals (95%CI): 0.792-0.960; p = 0.005 and OR: 0.980, 95%CI: 0.962-0.999; p = 0.036; respectively). The inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were fulfilled by 4/230 reports about LOD. After correction for study heterogeneity, the pooled prevalence of incidental endometriosis was 7.7% in women with CC-resistant PCOS. In conclusion, the rate of incidental endometriosis in women with CC-resistant PCOS might reflect the prevalence of asymptomatic endometriosis. All cases were affected by minimal or mild disease. Since the literature lacks reports on associated clinical outcomes, the relevance of this entity in such patients should be the subject of further studies.

Multi-system reproductive metabolic disorder: significance for the pathogenesis and therapy of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), a multisystem disease, is a major reason for female infertility around the world. It is no longer considered simply as a disease of ovary. Now researchers growing awareness of the multisystem features of this disease. PCOS has a higher relationship with metabolic disturbance and hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis (HPOA) function disorders. This syndrome results in hyperandrogenemia (HA), hyperinsulinemia/insulin resistance (IR), increased estrone, luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) ratio imbalance, infertility, cardiovascular diseases, endometrial dysfunction, obesity, and including a litany of other health issues. Furthermore, PCOS has been garnered in recent times. Interventions like metformin, orlistat, hormonal contraceptives, GLP1 agonists, and VitD have been applied to ameliorate or reverse the pathological characterization of PCOS. Moreover, drug-combined therapy of PCOS is superior to single drug administration. This review will focus on the recent progress in pathogenesis and therapy of PCOS.

Operative transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy improve ovulation rate after clomiphene failure in polycystic ovary syndrome

Aim of our study was to assess the ovulation rate, with mid-luteal progesterone level and ultrasound follicles monitoring, in PCOS CC-resistant patients undergone transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy ovarian drilling. A prospective observational study was carried out in 123 PCOS, infertile, CC-resistant patients who undergone THL ovarian drilling. Each woman was evaluated by hormonal measurement, and ultrasound evaluation during 6 months follow-up. Progesterone serum levels were assessed on days 20-24 of the cycle after surgical treatment. Pg levels >3 ng/mL were considered as ovulation. Ovulation frequency and the highest mean follicular diameters during the monitoring were recorded. 117 patients complete the study, since six patients were lost to follow-up. Mean follicular diameter during ovulation monitoring was 16.37 mm. Ovulation rate at the follow up was 64.1% one month after treatment, 79.5% after three months and 82.9% after six months. 28 patients conceived during follow-up period. Pregnancy rate was 70.1%. Our study has shown that THL ovarian drilling improves ovulation and pregnancy rate in women with CC-resistant PCOS. We believe that this approach should be offered as second-line therapy at all PCOS CC-resistant women who fail the medical methods of ovulation induction.

Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common reproductive endocrinology abnormalities, and affects 5% to 10% of women of reproductive age. Western medicines, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitizers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD), have been used to treat PCOS. Recently, many studies have been published that consider Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) as an alternative treatment for women with PCOS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched sources, including the following databases, from inception to 9 June 2016: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), PsycINFO, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang and trial registries. In addition, we searched the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that considered the use of CHM for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened appropriate trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 414 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (CEA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall quality of the evidence for most comparisons was very low.None of the included studies reported live birth rate, and only one study reported data on adverse events.When CHM was compared with clomiphene (with or without LOD in both arms), there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 5.06; two studies, 90 participants, I² statistic = 0%, very low quality evidence). No study reported data on adverse events. When CHM plus clomiphene was compared with clomiphene (with or without CEA), there was low quality evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.14; three RCTs, 300 women, I² statistic = 0%,low quality evidence). No data were reported on adverse events.When CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction was compared with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in pregnancy rates (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.52; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence), severe luteinized unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence).When CHM with LOD was compared with LOD alone, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of pregnancy (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; one study, 30 women, very low quality evidence), No data were reported on adverse events.There was no evidence of a difference between any of the comparison groups for any other outcomes. The quality of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for women with PCOS and subfertility. No data are available on live birth, and there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However there is very limited low quality evidence to suggest that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates. There is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe.

Drilling: medical indications and surgical technique

INTRODUCTION

anovulation is a major cause of female infertility, and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the leading cause of anovulation. While undergoing drug-induced ovulation, women with PCOS usually have a satisfactory response recruiting follicles, but some are unable to recruit follicles or often produce an excessive number of follicles, which can result in ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome and/or multiple pregnancy. Surgical laparoscopy with ovarian "drilling" may prevent or reduce the need for drug-induced ovulation.

OBJECTIVE

to identify the current indications of laparoscopic ovarian drilling and the best surgical technique.

METHOD

a review of the medical literature based on systematic search in the Medline, Lilacs and Cochrane databases, using as keywords laparoscopy, polycystic ovary syndrome, and drilling.

RESULTS

we found 105 articles in the literature, 27 of these highly relevant, describing findings on ovarian drilling.

CONCLUSION

laparoscopic drilling is indicated for patients with polycystic ovary syndrome with ovulatory resistance to the use of clomiphene citrate, body mass index less than 30 kg/m2 and preoperative luteinizing hormone above 10 IU/L. The preferred surgical technique should be the realization of 5 to 10 perforations on the surface of each ovary bilaterally using monopolar energy.

Randomized controlled trial comparing letrozole with laparoscopic ovarian drilling in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome

The aim of the present study was to compare the reproductive outcomes of letrozole and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) in women with clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). A total of 141 women with CC-resistant PCOS were enrolled and randomly allocated into groups A and B. Group A (n=71) received 2.5 mg letrozole from days 5 to 10 of menses for up to six cycles, and group B (n=70) underwent LOD. A 6-month follow-up was performed. No statistically significant difference was found in the baseline clinical characteristics and the major serum hormone profiles, including luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, estradiol and free testosterone, between the two groups. Women receiving letrozole had a lower rate of spontaneous abortion (6.9 vs. 15.8%) and higher clinical pregnancy (40.8 vs. 27.1%) and live birth (38.0 vs. 22.9%) rates; however, the differences were not statistically significant. Letrozole had superior reproductive outcomes compared with LOD in women with CC-resistant PCOS; therefore, letrozole could be used as the first-line treatment for women with CC-resistant PCOS.

Ovarian Drilling in PCOS: Is it Really Useful?

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a frequent disorder, affecting approximately 5-10% of infertile women. It can represent more than 80% of cases of infertility due to anovulation. The main goal of treatment is the induction of mono-ovulatory cycles. A pragmatic management of infertility in PCOS will allow most patients to conceive. Weight loss and clomiphene citrate (CC) are the first-line components of patients treatment before gonadotrophins are used. However, during gonadotrophin administration, there is a high risk of ovarian hyper-stimulation and multiple pregnancies. So, surgery with laparoscopic ovarian drilling is often used before gonadotrophins in order to obtain normal ovulatory cycles.

Comparison between Unilateral and Bilateral Ovarian Drilling in Clomiphene Citrate Resistance Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy

Background

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is an alternative method to induce ovulation in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients with clomiphene citrate (CC) resistant instead of gonadotropins. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of unilateral LOD (ULOD) versus bilateral LOD (BLOD) in CC resistance PCOS patients in terms of ovulation and pregnancy rates.

Materials and Methods

In a prospective randomized clinical trial study, we included 100 PCOS patients with CC resistance attending to Al-Zahra Hospital in Rasht, Guilan Province, Iran, from June 2011 to July 2012. Patients were randomly divided into two ULOD and BLOD groups with equal numbers. The clinical and biochemical responses on ovulation and pregnancy rates were assessed over a 6-month follow-up period.

Results

Differences in baseline characteristics of patients between two groups prior to laparoscopy were not significant (p>0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of clinical and biochemical responses, spontaneous menstruation (66.1 vs. 71.1%), spontaneous ovulation rate (60 vs. 64.4%), and pregnancy rate (33.1 vs. 40%) (p>0.05). Following drilling, there was a significant decrease in mean serum concentrations of luteinizing hormone (LH) (p=0.001) and testosterone (p=0.001) in both the groups. Mean decrease in serum LH (p=0.322) and testosterone concentrations (p=0.079) were not statistically significant between two groups. Mean serum level of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) did not change significantly in two groups after LOD (p>0.05).

Conclusion

Based on results of this study, ULOD seems to be equally efficacious as BLOD in terms of ovulation and pregnancy rates (Registration Number: IRCT138903291306N2).

Application of laparoscopy in the combined surgical procedures of gynecological and digestive disorders in obese women: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy surgery has been widely used for many decades and combined laparoscopic procedures have become favorable choices for concomitant pathologies in the abdomen. However, the type of combination procedures and their safety in obese women have not been well elucidated in obese women.

METHODS

Here we retrospectively reported 147 obese women underwent combined laparoscopic gynecological surgery and cholecystectomy/appendicectomy in our hospital from January 2003 to December 2011. Of the total number of patients (n = 147), various laparoscopic gynecological surgeries were combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 93 patients, and were combined with laparoscopic appendectomy in the rest 54 patients. Patients' ages ranged from 24 to 55 years with an average of 33 years.

RESULTS

Our results showed that combined procedures caused various operative time and blood loss, with no difference considering the time to resume oral intake and length of hospital stay. Intraoperative complications occurred in a total of 7 patients (4.8%). None of the patients suffered from major complications after laparoscopic surgery, and minor postoperative complications occurred in 30 patients (20.4%). The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 24 months (average, 18.5 months). None of the patients developed complications during follow-up, except that one patient suffered from colporrhagia.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results further suggest that the combined abdominal laparoscopic procedures of gynecologic and general surgery are safe and economic choices for obese women, and benefit patients in many ways including lesser pain, shorter hospital stays and earlier recovery.

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling: An alternative but not the ultimate in the management of polycystic ovary syndrome

Since its introduction in 1984, laparoscopic ovarian drilling has evolved into a safe and effective surgical treatment for anovulatory, infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), unresponsive to clomiphene citrate. It is as effective as gonadotropins in terms of pregnancy and live birth rates, but without the risks of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies. It improves ovarian responsiveness to successive ovulation induction agents. Its favorable reproductive and endocrinal effects are sustained long. Despite its advantages, its use in unselected cases of PCOS or for non-fertility indications is not prudent owing to the potential risks of iatrogenic adhesions and ovarian insufficiency.

A mixture of 86% of CO2, 10% of N2O, and 4% of oxygen permits laparoscopy under local anesthesia: a pilot study

The aim of this study is to verify that 10 % of N₂O in CO₂ sufficiently reduces pain to permit laparoscopy under local anesthesia. In nine patients undergoing laparoscopy under local anesthesia for tubal sterilization, a mixture of 86 % of CO₂, 10 % of N₂O, and 4 % of oxygen (the Gas Mixture) was used for the pneumoperitoneum. For CO2, N₂O, and for the Gas Mixture, the pain when blowing over the tongue tip and the pH changes of saline and Hartmann’s solution were estimated. In all nine patients, discomfort was minimal and the intervention was well tolerated, similar to 100 % N₂O. Tongue tip pain (n = 15), on VAS scale, was lower with 86 % CO₂ + 10 % N₂O + 4 % O₂ (2.4 ± 1.4, P = 0.005) and much lower with 100 % N₂O (0.3 ± 0.6, P < 0.0007) than with pure CO₂ (3.6 ± 1.7). The pH of saline (n = 5) decreased from 7.00 ± 0.07 to 4.18 ± 0.04 (P = 0.001), 6.98 ± 0.08 (NS), and 4.28 ± 0.04 (P = 0.01) with 100 % CO₂, 100 % N₂O and the Gas Mixture_, respectively. The pH of Hartmann’s solution (n = 5) decreased similarly from 7.00 ± 0.07 to 5.18 ± 0.04 (P = 0.01), 7.02 ± 0.19 (NS), and 5.3 ± 0.4 (P = 0.01), respectively. These data demonstrate that a mixture with 10 % of N₂O and 4 % of O₂ in CO₂ permits laparoscopy under local anesthesia. This result cannot be explained by direct irritation estimated by tongue tip pain or by pH changes.