[Systematic Review / Meta-analysis]
Impact of Surgery for Deep Infiltrative Endometriosis before In Vitro Fertilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Casals G et al.
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021 07; 28(7):1303-1312.e5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2021.02.007PMID: 33582380OBJECTIVE: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare reproductive outcomes in patients who underwent surgery for deep infiltrative endometriosis (DIE) before in vitro fertilization (IVF) with those in patients who underwent IVF without a previous surgery for DIE, to analyze data according to different types of surgery (complete or incomplete) or subgroups of patients (DIE with or without bowel involvement), and to assess surgical and IVF complications and data regarding safety concerns.
DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search from January 1980 to November 2019 with no language restriction was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search strategy used the following Medical Subject Headings terms: "in vitro," "fertilization," "IVF," "assisted reproduction," "colorectal," "endometriosis," "deep," "infiltrating," "deep infiltrative endometriosis," "intestinal," "bowel," "rectovaginal," "uterosacral," "vaginal," and "bladder."
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that compared reproductive outcomes in women with infertility with DIE who received IVF with or without a previous surgery for DIE lesions. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan v.5.3; Cochrane Training, London, United Kingdom). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the method recommended by Cochrane Collaboration.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The systematic search retrieved 150 articles; 98 studies were potentially eligible, and their full texts were reviewed. Of these, 12 studies met our inclusion criteria, and 5 presented data suitable for inclusion in a meta-analysis; however, 2 of the studies provided overlapping data, and only the larger study was finally included. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were found. The pregnancy rate per patient was 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-2.64), the pregnancy rate per cycle was 1.84 (95% CI, 1.26-2.70), and the live birth rate per patient was 2.22 (95% CI, 1.42-3.46) times more likely for operated patients than for nonoperated ones. The addition of data from the incomplete surgery groups also showed a higher pregnancy rate per patient for surgery before IVF (odds ratio [OR] 1.63; 95% CI, 1.16-2.28). The results favor previous surgery in DIE with digestive involvement (OR 2.43; 95% CI, 1.13-5.22) and also in DIE without digestive involvement (OR 1.55; 95% CI, 0.61-3.95). A qualitative analysis of the complications of surgery and IVF showed a partial or complete lack of information on these issues as well as high heterogeneity in the reported data. None of these studies is an RCT; therefore, all have a high risk of selection and allocation bias, except for 1 study that statistically controlled the latter risk by using propensity scores. Funnel plots showed no asymmetry.
CONCLUSION: The results were very consistent for all the studied outcomes, showing a statistically significant benefit for surgery before IVF, although they should be confirmed with RCTs. In addition to the reproductive outcomes, safety data should also be reported to obtain a complete assessment of the risks and benefits.
Copyright © 2021 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search from January 1980 to November 2019 with no language restriction was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search strategy used the following Medical Subject Headings terms: "in vitro," "fertilization," "IVF," "assisted reproduction," "colorectal," "endometriosis," "deep," "infiltrating," "deep infiltrative endometriosis," "intestinal," "bowel," "rectovaginal," "uterosacral," "vaginal," and "bladder."
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that compared reproductive outcomes in women with infertility with DIE who received IVF with or without a previous surgery for DIE lesions. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan v.5.3; Cochrane Training, London, United Kingdom). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the method recommended by Cochrane Collaboration.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The systematic search retrieved 150 articles; 98 studies were potentially eligible, and their full texts were reviewed. Of these, 12 studies met our inclusion criteria, and 5 presented data suitable for inclusion in a meta-analysis; however, 2 of the studies provided overlapping data, and only the larger study was finally included. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were found. The pregnancy rate per patient was 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-2.64), the pregnancy rate per cycle was 1.84 (95% CI, 1.26-2.70), and the live birth rate per patient was 2.22 (95% CI, 1.42-3.46) times more likely for operated patients than for nonoperated ones. The addition of data from the incomplete surgery groups also showed a higher pregnancy rate per patient for surgery before IVF (odds ratio [OR] 1.63; 95% CI, 1.16-2.28). The results favor previous surgery in DIE with digestive involvement (OR 2.43; 95% CI, 1.13-5.22) and also in DIE without digestive involvement (OR 1.55; 95% CI, 0.61-3.95). A qualitative analysis of the complications of surgery and IVF showed a partial or complete lack of information on these issues as well as high heterogeneity in the reported data. None of these studies is an RCT; therefore, all have a high risk of selection and allocation bias, except for 1 study that statistically controlled the latter risk by using propensity scores. Funnel plots showed no asymmetry.
CONCLUSION: The results were very consistent for all the studied outcomes, showing a statistically significant benefit for surgery before IVF, although they should be confirmed with RCTs. In addition to the reproductive outcomes, safety data should also be reported to obtain a complete assessment of the risks and benefits.
Copyright © 2021 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Gynecology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona (Drs. Casals and Carmona), Barcelona
- 2 Assisted Reproduction Unit, Hospital Universitario Doce de Octubre (Dr. Carrera), Madrid
- 3 Instituto Extremeño de Reproducción Asistida (IERA Badajoz-Lisboa), Centro de Cirugía de Mínima Invasión Jesús Uson (Dr. Domínguez), Cáceres, Spain
- 4 Gynecologic Division, BP-A Beneficencia Portuguesa de São Paulo, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (Dr. Abrão), São Paulo, Brazil
- 5 Department of Gynecology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona (Drs. Casals and Carmona), Barcelona. fcarmona@clinic.cat
