TY - JOUR
T1 - Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities
AU - Bosteels, Jan
AU - van Wessel, Steffi
AU - Weyers, Steven
AU - Broekmans, Frank J.
AU - D'Hooghe, Thomas M.
AU - Bongers, M. Y.
AU - Mol, Ben Willem J.
N1 - Funding Information:
Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group: we wish to thank Prof Cindy Farquhar, CGF Co-ordinating Editor; Ms Jane Clarke, former CGF Managing Editor; Ms Helen Nagels, CGF Managing Editor and Ms Jane Marjoribanks, CGF Assistant Managing Editor for their advice and support. We have used the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) supplementary author advice for describing the results of the present updated Cochrane Review (Ryan 2016). We thank Ms Marian Showell, CGF Information Specialist for assistance in searching the CGF Specialised Register and the handsearch. Biomedical Library Gasthuisberg, Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium. Many thanks to Mr Jens De Groot for skilful assistance in developing the literature search strategy. Prof Tirso Pérez-Medina, head of the department of Gynaecology at the University Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain, has answered all the queries concerning the randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of hysteroscopic polypectomy prior to IUI. The Board of the European Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE). Prof Hans Brolmann (Past ESGE President) and Dr Rudi Campo (Former ESGE Secretary) have been very helpful in contacting a group of experts in hysteroscopy in the field of Reproductive Medicine. Dr Rudi Campo (ZOL Genk, Belgium), Dr Dick Schoot (Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands), Prof Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo (University of Naples 'Frederico II', Naples, Italy), Prof Hervé Fernandez (Hôpital Bicêtre, Le Kremin-Bicêtre, France), Prof Kristine Juul Hare (Gynækologisk-Obstetrisk afdeling, Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark) and Dr Matthew Prior (Newcastle Fertility Centre, Newcastle, UK) have provided data on published or ongoing randomised trials relevant to the research questions. Dr Ben Cohlen (Fertility Centre Isala, Zwolle, the Netherlands), Prof Willem Ombelet (ZOL, Genk, Belgium) and Prof Carl Spiessens (Leuven University Fertility Centre, Leuven, Belgium) have provided useful data on the clinical pregnancy rates after gonadotropin stimulation and IUI. Dr Mariette Goddijn (AMC Amsterdam, the Netherlands) has given valuable feedback on the risk of bias assessment for one of the included trials at the occasion of the oral opposition and defence of the PhD thesis of the first author. Ms Elizabeth Bosselaers (Managing Secretary CEBAM, Cochrane Belgium) has assisted in improving the plain language summary. We acknowledge comments sent by Prof Hossam Eldin Shawki Abdalla MD of the Obstetrics & Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine, El-Minia University, Egypt. Our formal response was published in October 2014 and the points made were taken into account in this update. The authors of the 2018 update thank Dr Jenneke Kasius for her contributions to previous versions of this review.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PY - 2018/12/5
Y1 - 2018/12/5
N2 - BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the inclusion criteria.1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison.2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low-quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.
AB - BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the inclusion criteria.1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison.2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low-quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.
KW - Coitus
KW - Endometrium
KW - Female
KW - Fertilization in Vitro
KW - Humans
KW - Hysteroscopy/adverse effects
KW - Infertility/etiology
KW - Insemination, Artificial/methods
KW - Leiomyoma/surgery
KW - Live Birth
KW - Polyps/surgery
KW - Pregnancy
KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
KW - Tissue Adhesions/surgery
KW - Uterine Diseases/surgery
KW - Uterus/abnormalities
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059269979&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub4
DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub4
M3 - Article
C2 - 30521679
AN - SCOPUS:85059269979
SN - 1469-493X
VL - 2018
SP - CD009461
JO - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
JF - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
IS - 12
M1 - CD009461
ER -