| Literature DB >> 28574993 |
Xin Tao1, Lei Chen1, Shuqi Ge2, Lisi Cai1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the effects of conservative surgery for endometriomas on ovarian responsiveness during assisted reproductive technology (ART) and provide reproductive and gynecological doctors with a more reliable reference program for the treatment of endometriomas.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28574993 PMCID: PMC5456033 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177426
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flowchart showing the study selection process.
Characteristics of all studies included in the meta-analysis.
| No. | Study (authors,year) | Design | intervention/protocol | study group(N) | operated side | control group(N) | Outcome measures | Quality score | Location (country) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Canis et al. (2001) | Retrospective case-control | IVF long | Endometrioma cystectomy(39) | Either | surgically treated endometriosis but without endometrioma (128) | NOR | 8 | France |
| 2 | Geber et al. (2002) | Retrospective cohort | IVF/ICSI long | Endometrioma cystectomy(45) | Either | without ovarian surgery or endometriosis (48) | DOS,NOR,TFE,PR | 8 | Brazil |
| 3 | Ho. et al. (2002) | Retrospective case-control | IVF long | operated side(38) | UL | intact side(38) | NDF,NOR | 8 | Taiwan |
| 4 | Marconi et al. (2002) | Retrospective cohort | IVF long | Endometrioma cystectomy(39) | Either | tubal factor (39) | NOR,TFE, NDF,E2L,PR | 8 | Argentina |
| 5 | Pabuccu et al. (2007) | Randomize control trail | IVF/ICSI long | Endometrioma cystectomy(41) | Either | untreated endometrioma (33) | DOS,NDF, NOR,E2L,TFE, PR | RCT | Turkey |
| 6 | Pabuccu et al. (2004) | Randomize control trail | IVF/ICSI long | Endometrioma cystectomy(44) | Either | tubal factor(46) | DOS,E2L,NDFPR | RCT | Turkey |
| 7 | Wong et al. (2004) | Retrospective cohort | IVF/ICSI long | Endometrioma cystectomy(36) | Either | untreated endometrioma (38) | E2L,TFE, PR | 8 | USA |
| 8 | Garcia-velasco et al.(2004) | Retrospective case-control | IVF/ICSI long | Endometrioma cystectomy(147) | Either | untreated endometrioma (63) | TOG,DOS, E2L,NOR,TFE, PR | 8 | Spain |
| 9 | Loo et al. (2005) | Retrospective case-control | IVF ND | Endometrioma cystectomy(127) | Either | tubal factor(95) | TOG,E2L,NOR | 8 | Taiwan |
| 10 | Ragni et al. (2005) | Retrospective case-control | IVF/ICSI long | operated side(17) | UL | intact side(17) | NOR,NDF, | 8 | Italy |
| 11 | Dermirol et al. (2006) | Randomize control trail | ICSI long | Endometrioma cystectomy(49) | Either | untreated endometrioma (50) | TOG,DOS, E2L,TFE, PR | RCT | Turkey |
| 12 | Esinler et al. (2006) | Retrospective case-control | ICSI long | Endometrioma cystectomy(23) | BL | tubal factor(99) | TOG,DOS, E2L,TFE, PR | 8 | Turkey |
| 13 | Matalliotakis et al.(2007) | Retrospective case-control | IVF/ICSI long | Endometrioma cystectomy(133) | Either | tubal factor(208) | NDF,DOS, NOR,E2L,TFE, PR,LBR | 8 | USA |
| 14 | Nakagawa et al. (2007) | Retrospective cohort | IVF long | Endometrioma cystectomy(10) | Either | no endometrioma (70) | NOR,E2L,TFE PR | 8 | Japan |
| 15 | Somiglianaet al. (2008) | Retrospective cohort | IVF/ICSI long | Endometrioma cystectomy(68) | BL | other factor of infertility(136) | DOS,NDF, NOR,TFE,LBR | 8 | Italy |
| 16 | Kahyaoglu et al. (2008) | Retrospective case-control | IVF long | Endometrioma cystectomy(22) | Either | tubal factor(22) | NDF,NOR,E2L PR | 8 | Turkey |
| 17 | Yamamoto et al. (2010) | Retrospective case-control | IVF/ICSI long/short | Endometrioma cystectomy(35) | BL | cyst-free(94) | TOG,NOR, PR | 9 | Japan |
| 18 | Bongioanniet al. (2011) | Retrospective case-control | IVF long | Endometrioma cystectomy(112) | Either | untreated endometrioma (142) | TOG,NOR,TFE PR,LBR | 8 | Italy |
| 19 | Dong et al. (2014) | Retrospective Cohort | IVF/ICSI:long/antagonist/prolonged | Endometrioma cystectomy(153) | Either | untreated endometrioma (68) | TOG,DOS,NDFNOR,E2L,TFE, PR,LBR | 8 | China |
| 20 | Lee et al. (2014) | Retrospective cohort | IVF/ICSI:long/antagonist/prolonged | Endometrioma cystectomy(36) | Either | untreated endometrioma (36) | TOG,DOS,NDF,NOR,TFE, PR,LBR | 8 | Korea |
| 21 | Somiglianaet al. (2003) | Retrospective case-control | IVF/ICSI long | operated side(20) | UL | intact side(20) | NDF | 8 | Italy |
Note:UL = unilateral; BL = bilateral; TOG = total of GN used; DOS = duration of stimulation; E2L = E2 level on HCG day; NDF = number of dominant follicle; NOR = number of oocyte retrieved; TFE = total formed embryos; PR = Pregnancy rate; LBR = Live birth rate; ND = not documented
Risk of bias using Cochrane risk assessment tool for RCT.
| Bias | Selection | Performance | Attrition | Outcome assessment | Reporting | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors(year) | Random sequence generation | allocation sequence concealment | blinding | incomplete outcome data | blinding | selective reporting |
| Pabuccu et al.(2004) | low risk | low risk | high risk | low risk | low risk | high risk |
| Demirol et al.(2006) | low risk | low risk | high risk | low risk | low risk | high risk |
| Pabuccu et al.(2007) | low risk | low risk | low risk | low risk | low risk | high risk |
Results of meta-analysis comparison of cystectomy and existence of ovarian endomentrioma.
| Outcomes of interest | studies no. | cystectomy patients no. | existence patients no. | WMD/95%CI | P value | heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X2 | df | I% | p value | ||||||
| total amount of Gn used | 8 | 597 | 732 | 0.84[0.17,1.51] | 0.01 | 203.98 | 7 | 97% | <0.00001 |
| duration of stimulation | 10 | 654 | 872 | 0.17 [-0.07, 0.42] | 0.17 | 44.39 | 9 | 80% | <0.00001 |
| E2 level on HCG day | 11 | 703 | 878 | -0.67[-1.18,-0.16] | <0.00001 | 198.27 | 10 | 95% | <0.00001 |
| number of dominant follicle | 10 | 458 | 612 | -1.43[-2.03,-0.84] | <0.00001 | 26.16 | 9 | 66% | 0.002 |
| number of oocytes retrieved | 16 | 977 | 1322 | -1.78[-2.39,-1.17] | <0.00001 | 41.69 | 15 | 64% | 0.0003 |
| total formed embryos | 13 | 807 | 1115 | -0.07[-030,016] | 0.53 | 63.31 | 12 | 81% | <0.00001 |
| pregnancy rate | 17 | 984 | 1346 | 0.98[0.82,1.18] | 0.83 | 13.89 | 16 | 0% | 0.61 |
| Live birth rate | 5 | 417 | 633 | 0.93[0.70,1.23] | 0.61 | 6.79 | 4 | 41% | 0.15 |
| number of dominant follicle | 3 | 81 | 81 | -1.17[-1.79,-0.56] | 0.0002 | 6.22 | 2 | 68% | 0.04 |
| number of oocytes retrieved | 2 | 49 | 49 | -3.48[-4.77,-2.19] | <0.00001 | 0.08 | 1 | 0% | 0.78 |
Sensitivity analysis comparison of cystectomy and existence of ovarian endomentrioma.
| Outcomes of interest | Studies no. | Cystectomy patients no. | Existence patients no. | WMD 95%CI | P value | heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X2 | df | I% | p value | ||||||
| total amount of Gn used | 7 | 450 | 669 | 0.48[0.13,0.82] | 0.007 | 42.26 | 6 | 86% | <0.00001 |
| duration of stimulation | 9 | 605 | 822 | 0.02 [-0.09, 0.13] | 0.77 | 15.23 | 8 | 47% | 0.05 |
| E2 level on HCG day | 8 | 463 | 719 | -0.29[-0.41,-0.17] | <0.00001 | 13.09 | 7 | 47% | 0.07 |
| number of dominant follicle | 8 | 421 | 575 | -1.17[-1.51,-0.82] | <0.00001 | 7.94 | 7 | 12% | 0.34 |
| number of oocytes retrieved | 13 | 858 | 1066 | -2.10[-2.73,-1.47] | <0.00001 | 33.32 | 12 | 64% | 0.0009 |
| total formed embryos | 10 | 614 | 944 | -0.06[-0.17,0.04] | 0.25 | 11.93 | 9 | 25% | 0.22 |
| pregnancy rate | 17 | 984 | 1346 | 0.98[0.82,1.18] | 0.83 | 13.89 | 16 | 0% | 0.61 |
| Live birth rate | 5 | 417 | 633 | 0.93[0.70,1.23] | 0.61 | 6.79 | 4 | 41% | 0.15 |
| number of dominant follicle | 2 | 64 | 64 | -0.88[-1.25,-0.52] | <0.00001 | 0.46 | 1 | 0% | 0.50 |
| number of oocytes retrieved | 2 | 49 | 49 | -3.48[-4.77,-2.19] | <0.00001 | 0.08 | 1 | 0% | 0.78 |
Fig 2Forrest plot of comparisons inter-patient. IV = inverse variance method; CI = confidence interval; M-H = mantel-Haenszel.
(a) Total amount of gonadotropin (Gn) used. (b) Duration of stimulation. (c) Estrogen (E) level on HCG day. (d) Number of mature or dominant follicle. (e) Total number of oocytes retrieved. (f) Total formed embryos. (g) Pregnancy rate. (h) Live birth rate.
Fig 3Forrest plot of comparisons inta-patient. IV = inverse variance method; CI = confidence interval.
a: Number of mature or dominant follicle. b: Total number of oocytes retrieved.
Fig 4Funnel plots illustrating pregnancy rate inter-patients.
SE = standard error; SMD = standard mean difference.