Xinyan Gao1,2,3,4, Yousheng Zhang1,2,3,4, Xinxin Xu1,2,3,4, Shaoming Lu1,2,3,4, Lei Yan5,6,7,8. 1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, 44 Wenhuaxi Road, Jinan, 2500012, Shandong, China. 2. National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China. 3. Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology of Ministry of Education, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China. 4. Shandong Provincial Clinical Medicine Research Center for Reproductive Health, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China. 5. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, 44 Wenhuaxi Road, Jinan, 2500012, Shandong, China. yanlei@sdu.edu.cn. 6. National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China. yanlei@sdu.edu.cn. 7. Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology of Ministry of Education, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China. yanlei@sdu.edu.cn. 8. Shandong Provincial Clinical Medicine Research Center for Reproductive Health, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, Shandong, China. yanlei@sdu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of ovarian endometrioma aspiration on IVF/ICSI outcomes. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched to identify studies related to the treatment of endometrioma up to October 1, 2020, and the data of 1207 patients from 10 studies were analyzed using STATA. RESULTS: The 10 studies in our analysis included 7 comparing aspiration and surgery and 6 comparing aspiration with no intervention. In the aspiration versus surgery groups, live birth rate [OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.51, 1.85), P = 0.925] and clinical pregnancy rate [OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.95, 1.80), P = 0.105] showed no significant difference between the two groups. Abortion rate [OR 4.26 (95% CI 1.38, 13.08), P = 0.011], the number of oocytes retrieved [mean difference 1.95 (95% CI 0.10, 3.81), P = 0.039], and the estradiol peak on hCG day [mean difference 392.16 (95% CI 230.14, 554.18), P < 0.001] were significantly higher in the aspiration group compared to the surgical group. In the aspiration versus the no intervention group, live birth rate [OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.45, 1.59), P = 0.602] and clinical pregnancy rate [OR 1.25 (95% CI 0.88, 1.77), P = 0.206] were not significantly different between the two groups. The abortion rate [OR 0.31 (95% CI 0.11, 0.88), P = 0.028] and the number of gonadotropin ampoules [mean difference - 3.13 ampoules (95% CI - 4.90, - 1.37), P < 0.001] were significantly lower in the aspiration group compared to the no intervention group. CONCLUSION: Compared with surgical treatment or no intervention treatment, aspiration has less effect on ovarian response, ovarian reserve, and pregnancy outcomes.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of ovarian endometrioma aspiration on IVF/ICSI outcomes. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched to identify studies related to the treatment of endometrioma up to October 1, 2020, and the data of 1207 patients from 10 studies were analyzed using STATA. RESULTS: The 10 studies in our analysis included 7 comparing aspiration and surgery and 6 comparing aspiration with no intervention. In the aspiration versus surgery groups, live birth rate [OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.51, 1.85), P = 0.925] and clinical pregnancy rate [OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.95, 1.80), P = 0.105] showed no significant difference between the two groups. Abortion rate [OR 4.26 (95% CI 1.38, 13.08), P = 0.011], the number of oocytes retrieved [mean difference 1.95 (95% CI 0.10, 3.81), P = 0.039], and the estradiol peak on hCG day [mean difference 392.16 (95% CI 230.14, 554.18), P < 0.001] were significantly higher in the aspiration group compared to the surgical group. In the aspiration versus the no intervention group, live birth rate [OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.45, 1.59), P = 0.602] and clinical pregnancy rate [OR 1.25 (95% CI 0.88, 1.77), P = 0.206] were not significantly different between the two groups. The abortion rate [OR 0.31 (95% CI 0.11, 0.88), P = 0.028] and the number of gonadotropin ampoules [mean difference - 3.13 ampoules (95% CI - 4.90, - 1.37), P < 0.001] were significantly lower in the aspiration group compared to the no intervention group. CONCLUSION: Compared with surgical treatment or no intervention treatment, aspiration has less effect on ovarian response, ovarian reserve, and pregnancy outcomes.
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: P Santulli; P Collinet; X Fritel; M Canis; E M d'Argent; C Chauffour; J Cohen; J L Pouly; J Boujenah; C Poncelet; C Decanter; B Borghese; C Chapron Journal: Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol Date: 2018-03-02