S A Amer1, T C Li, M Metwally, M Emarh, W L Ledger. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nottingham, Derby City General Hospital, Derby DE22 3NE, UK. saad.amer@nottingham.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Laparoscopic ovarian diathermy (LOD) is currently accepted as a successful second-line treatment for ovulation induction (OI) in clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that LOD may be superior to CC as a first-line treatment. METHODS: The study included 72 anovulatory women with PCOS who were randomized to LOD (n = 36) or CC (n = 36). Women who remained anovulatory after LOD were offered CC. Similarly, women receiving CC who failed to ovulate or conceive were offered LOD. Pregnancy rates were compared between the two groups using chi(2) and odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (OR, 95% CI). RESULTS: After randomization, six women conceived before starting treatment and another patient postponed treatment. The remaining 65 women received the treatment (33 underwent LOD and 32 received CC). After the primary treatment, more pregnancies (44%) occurred in women receiving CC than in those undergoing LOD (27%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance [P = 0.13, OR 2.1 (0.7 - 5.8)]. After adding the second treatment, the pregnancy rate was still higher, but to a less extent, in the CC group [63% versus 52%, P = 0.2, OR 1.6 (0.6 - 4.2)]. CONCLUSIONS:LOD is not superior to CC as a first-line method of OI in women with PCOS. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with an identifier number NCT00220545.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ovarian diathermy (LOD) is currently accepted as a successful second-line treatment for ovulation induction (OI) in clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that LOD may be superior to CC as a first-line treatment. METHODS: The study included 72 anovulatory women with PCOS who were randomized to LOD (n = 36) or CC (n = 36). Women who remained anovulatory after LOD were offered CC. Similarly, women receiving CC who failed to ovulate or conceive were offered LOD. Pregnancy rates were compared between the two groups using chi(2) and odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (OR, 95% CI). RESULTS: After randomization, six women conceived before starting treatment and another patient postponed treatment. The remaining 65 women received the treatment (33 underwent LOD and 32 received CC). After the primary treatment, more pregnancies (44%) occurred in women receiving CC than in those undergoing LOD (27%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance [P = 0.13, OR 2.1 (0.7 - 5.8)]. After adding the second treatment, the pregnancy rate was still higher, but to a less extent, in the CC group [63% versus 52%, P = 0.2, OR 1.6 (0.6 - 4.2)]. CONCLUSIONS: LOD is not superior to CC as a first-line method of OI in women with PCOS. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with an identifier number NCT00220545.
Authors: Lisa Dapuzzo; Faith E Seitz; William C Dodson; Christina Stetter; Allen R Kunselman; Richard S Legro Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 7.329