ESHRE Capri Workshop Group.
Health and fertility in World Health Organization group 2 anovulatory women.
Hum Reprod Update. 2012 Sep-Oct;18(5):586-99. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms019. Epub 2012 May 19.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Disruption of ovulation occurs in different types of clinical infertility. The World Health Organization (WHO) has provided a classification of ovulation disorders. This review focuses on WHO group 2 anovulation.
METHODS: Searches were performed in Medline/PubMed and EMBASE. Each subject summary was presented to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Workshop Group, where omissions or disagreements were resolved by discussion.
RESULTS: Disorders resulting in ovulatory disturbances are a relatively common cause of infertility. They occur most frequently in the context of WHO group 2 anovulation as reflected, for example, in the polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). The aetiology of PCOS remains unclear but evidence exists for a multifactorial origin with a genetic predisposition. Women with PCOS show an increased time to pregnancy but their eventual family size is not necessarily reduced. Also their frequency of miscarriage does not appear increased. Clomiphene citrate is still the first-line treatment in subfertile anovulatory patients with PCOS, with gonadotrophins and laparoscopic ovarian surgery as second-line options. Aromatase inhibitors show promising results.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term health risks in patients with WHO group 2 anovulation demand their general health be monitored, even after their reproductive needs have been fulfilled. Metabolic and cardiovascular risk prevention in women with PCOS should start as early as possible. It is not easy to analyse the possible role of PCOS, independent of obesity, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and diabetes, on long-term health.
Abu Hashim H, Al-Inany H, De Vos M, Tournaye H.
Three decades after Gjönnaess's laparoscopic ovarian drilling for treatment of PCOS; what do we know? An evidence-based approach.
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013 Aug;288(2):409-22. doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-2808-x. Epub 2013 Mar 30.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The introduction of laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) by Gjönnaess in 1984 as a substitute for ovarian wedge resection created opportunities for extensive research given its worldwide application for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).
PURPOSE: To critically evaluate and summarize the current body of literature regarding the role of LOD for the management of PCOS entailing its different preoperative, operative and postoperative aspects. In addition, long-term efficacy, cost-effectiveness, patient preference and health-related quality of life issues will be evaluated together with other available alternatives of ovulation induction treatments.
METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted looking for the different trials, reviews and various guidelines relating to the role of LOD in the management of PCOS.
RESULTS: LOD whether unilateral or bilateral is a beneficial second-line treatment in infertile women with clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant PCOS. It is as effective as gonadotrophin treatment but without the risk of multiple pregnancy or ovarian hyperstimulation and does not require intensive monitoring. Increased responsiveness of the ovary to CC especially in patients who remain anovulatory following LOD is another advantage. Recent evidence suggests that relatively novel oral methods of ovulation induction, e.g. CC plus metformin, CC plus tamoxifen, rosiglitazone plus CC and aromatase inhibitors represent a successful alternative to LOD in CC-resistant PCOS. Meanwhile current evidence does not support LOD as a first-line approach in PCOS-related anovulation or before IVF.
CONCLUSION: LOD is currently recommended as a successful and economical second-line treatment for ovulation induction in women with CC-resistant PCOS.
Bordewijk EM, Ng KYB, Rakic L, Mol BWJ, Brown J, Crawford TJ, van Wely M.
Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Feb 11;2(2):CD001122. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001122.pub5. Epub 2020 Feb 11.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I2 = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I2 = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I2 = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.
Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
