OBJECTIVE: To further evaluate the effects of intramural and subserosal uterine fibroids on the outcome of IVF-ET, when there is no compression of the endometrial cavity. DESIGN: Retrospective, matched-control study from January 2000 to October 2001. SETTING: Private IVF center. PATIENT(S): Two hundred forty-five women with subserosal and/or intramural fibroids that did not compress the uterine cavity (fibroid group) and 245 women with no evidence of fibroids anywhere in the uterus (control group). INTERVENTION(S): In vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) cycles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The type of fibroid (intramural, subserosal), number, size (cm), and location of intramural leiomyomas (fundal, corpus) were recorded. Outcomes of IVF-ICSI cycles were compared between the two groups. RESULT(S): There was no correlation between location and number of uterine fibroids and the outcomes of IVF-ICSI. Patients with subserosal or intramural fibroids <4 cm had IVF-ICSI outcomes (pregnancy, implantation, and abortion rates) similar to those of controls. Patients with intramural fibroids >4.0 cm had lower pregnancy rates than patients with intramural fibroids <or=4.0 cm. There were no statistical differences related to delivery rates (31.5% vs. 32%, respectively) between all patients with fibroids and controls. Premature delivery rates for singleton gestations were 10% vs. 8%, respectively, in all patients with fibroid and controls. CONCLUSION(S): Patients having subserosal or intramural leiomyomas of <4 cm not encroaching on the uterine cavity have IVF-ICSI outcomes comparable to those of patients without such leiomyomas. Therefore, they might not require myomectomy before being scheduled for assisted reproduction cycles. However, we recommend caution for patients with fibroids >4 cm and that such patients be submitted to treatment before they are enrolled in IVF-ICSI cycles. Whether or not women with fibroids > 4 cm would benefit from fibroid treatment remains to be determined.
OBJECTIVE: To further evaluate the effects of intramural and subserosal uterine fibroids on the outcome of IVF-ET, when there is no compression of the endometrial cavity. DESIGN: Retrospective, matched-control study from January 2000 to October 2001. SETTING: Private IVF center. PATIENT(S): Two hundred forty-five women with subserosal and/or intramural fibroids that did not compress the uterine cavity (fibroid group) and 245 women with no evidence of fibroids anywhere in the uterus (control group). INTERVENTION(S): In vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) cycles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The type of fibroid (intramural, subserosal), number, size (cm), and location of intramural leiomyomas (fundal, corpus) were recorded. Outcomes of IVF-ICSI cycles were compared between the two groups. RESULT(S): There was no correlation between location and number of uterine fibroids and the outcomes of IVF-ICSI. Patients with subserosal or intramural fibroids <4 cm had IVF-ICSI outcomes (pregnancy, implantation, and abortion rates) similar to those of controls. Patients with intramural fibroids >4.0 cm had lower pregnancy rates than patients with intramural fibroids <or=4.0 cm. There were no statistical differences related to delivery rates (31.5% vs. 32%, respectively) between all patients with fibroids and controls. Premature delivery rates for singleton gestations were 10% vs. 8%, respectively, in all patients with fibroid and controls. CONCLUSION(S): Patients having subserosal or intramural leiomyomas of <4 cm not encroaching on the uterine cavity have IVF-ICSI outcomes comparable to those of patients without such leiomyomas. Therefore, they might not require myomectomy before being scheduled for assisted reproduction cycles. However, we recommend caution for patients with fibroids >4 cm and that such patients be submitted to treatment before they are enrolled in IVF-ICSI cycles. Whether or not women with fibroids > 4 cm would benefit from fibroid treatment remains to be determined.
Authors: Aaron K Styer; Susan Jin; Dan Liu; Baisong Wang; Alex J Polotsky; Mindy S Christianson; Wendy Vitek; Lawrence Engmann; Karl Hansen; Robert Wild; Richard S Legro; Christos Coutifaris; Ruben Alvero; Randal D Robinson; Peter Casson; Gregory M Christman; Alicia Christy; Michael P Diamond; Esther Eisenberg; Heping Zhang; Nanette Santoro Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Hao Huang; Hongying Kuang; Fangbai Sun; Michael P Diamond; Richard S Legro; Christos Coutifaris; Ruben Alvero; Randal D Robinson; Peter R Casson; Gregory M Christman; Karl R Hansen; Nanette Santoro; Esther Eisenberg; Heping Zhang Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Gayle Johnson; Richard F MacLehose; Donna D Baird; Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso; Katherine E Hartmann Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Mary Ojo-Carons; Sunni L Mumford; Alicia Y Armstrong; Alan H DeCherney; Kate Devine Journal: Gynecol Obstet Invest Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Gary Levy; Micah J Hill; Stephanie Beall; Shvetha M Zarek; James H Segars; William H Catherino Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 3.412