Endometrial scratch for infertile polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) women undergoing laparoscopic ovarian drilling: a randomized controlled trial

Unilateral or Bilateral Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Objectives

On the first line of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) treatment, ovulation with clomiphene citrate (CC) is induced. However, 25% of patients need alternative therapy. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) can result in successive ovulations and is not linked to ovarian hyperstimulation. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to consider the efficacy of unilateral LOD (ULOD) versus bilateral LOD (BLOD) for enhancing fertility and improving fertility outcomes in women with CC-resistant.

Materials and Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted up to July 15, 2023, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases. Thirteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. After data extraction, we performed a meta-analysis.

Results

As the main unit of analysis for each variable, the standardized mean difference was used between the two groups. The random effects model was used for analysis and heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 statistics. Publication bias was inspected through funnel plots and Begg's and Egger's regression tests. The included studies were divided into two general categories. In the first category, surgical treatment of LOD was compared with other treatments. Whereas, in the other category, ULOD was compared with BLOD.

Conclusion

In summary, this meta-analysis did not find a significant difference in the rate of ovulation, pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth between the two groups. However, LOD could cause damage to the ovarian reserve, but it has long-term effects on improving the menstrual cycle and reproduction. In general, LOD is a significant method for the treatment of infertility in PCOS, which needs further investigation.

Deontological Guilt and Moral Distress as Diametrically Opposite Phenomena: A Case Study of Three Clinicians

Feelings of guilt are human emotions that may arise if a person committed an action that contradicts basic moral mores or failed to commit an action that is considered moral according to their ethical standards and values. Psychological scholarship distinguishes between altruistic guilt (AG) and deontological guilt (DG). AG results from having caused harm to an innocent victim, either by acting or failing to act, whereas DG is caused by violating a moral principle. Although physicians may be expected to experience frequent feelings of guilt in their demanding and intensive work, it is surprising to find that this issue has not been explored in the professional literature on medical ethics. To that end, we conducted a qualitative study that included personal in-depth interviews with Sunni Muslim gynaecologists. These doctors provide underground infertility care and perform religiously forbidden treatments involving sex selection and gamete donation. They opened their hearts and spoke about the emotionally taxing pangs of conscience they suffer. Analysing their narratives led us to characterize their feelings of guilt as DG. We discuss the causes for their plight and the way they cope with it, compare DG to the concept of moral distress, and call for future research on clinicians' feelings of guilt and pangs of conscience.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs (3703 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials.

SETTING

Sixteen UK fertility units.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m² and previous trauma to the endometrium.

INTERVENTIONS

Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs.

RESULTS

One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22).

LIMITATIONS

A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A randomized trial of endometrial scratching in women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction cycles

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does endometrial scratching improve the chance of a live birth in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing ovulation induction and trying to conceive?

DESIGN

An international, multicentre, randomized, sham-controlled trial across six fertility clinics in three countries (New Zealand, UK and Brazil). Women with a diagnosis of PCOS who were planning to commence ovulation induction cycles (at least three cycles) in order to conceive were randomly assigned to receive the pipelle (scratch) procedure or a sham (placebo) procedure in the first cycle of ovulation induction. Women kept a diary of ovulation induction and sexual intercourse timing over three consecutive cycles and pregnancies were followed up to live birth. Primary outcome was live birth and secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, adverse pregnancy outcomes, neonatal outcomes, bleeding following procedure and pain score following procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 117 women were randomized; 58 to the scratch group and 59 to the sham group. Live birth occurred in 11 (19%) women in the scratch group and 14 (24%) in the sham group (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-1.92). Secondary outcomes were similar in each group. Significantly higher pain scores were reported in the scratch group (adjusted mean difference 3.2, 95% CI 2.5-3.9) when measured on a visual analogue scale.

CONCLUSION

No difference was detected in live birth rate for women with PCOS who received an endometrial scratch when trying to conceive using ovulation induction; however, uncertainty remains due to the small sample size in this study.

Endometrial scratch injury in infertile women seeking conception through natural or intrauterine insemination cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Implantation failure is a major cause of infertility. To evaluate the value of ESI in infertile women undergoing natural or IUI cycles.

METHODS

Screening of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, other bases from inception to June 2021 using the keywords related to endometrial scratch, implantation, infertility, and IUI. RCTs of intentional endometrial injury in couples seeking fertility through natural or IUI cycles were included. All types of ESI with variable intensity (mild to moderate or severe), at different times of the cycle (preceding follicular, preceding luteal, same follicular or two times), single or double compared to none, placebo or other active interventions were included. Twenty-five studies included 4234 women (five natural [774 women], 20 IUI [3460 women]) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Extracted data included settings of the study, sample size, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome parameters. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

ESI increased clinical pregnancy rate from 16.1% (62/386) to 26.5% (103/388) and from 11.4% (186/1627) to 22.25% (408/1833), P = 0.004 and <0.001 in natural and IUI cycles, respectively. ESI increased live birth rate from 26.6% (42/158) to 37.6% (59/157) (P = 0.250) and from 11.2% (36/322) to 18% (58/322) (P = 0.020) in natural and IUI cycles, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ESI increased both clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates significantly in natural and IUI cycles. However, there is marked methodological heterogeneity among the different studies in defining the outcome parameters.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs (4035 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Higher versus lower degree of intentional endometrial injury Evidence was insufficient to show whether there is a difference in ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 332 participants; low-quality evidence) between hysteroscopy with endometrial injury and hysteroscopy alone. Evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy with hysteroscopy alone is 10%, then the chance with hysteroscopy with endometrial injury would be 7% to 24%. This study did not report the primary outcomes of live birth and pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.