RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) consists of plasma and a concentrate of platelets extracted from fresh whole blood of the person being treated. Research has suggested that intrauterine or intraovarian infusion/injection of PRP before embryo transfer may improve endometrial receptivity and response to ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproduction. We compared these interventions to standard treatment, placebo, or other interventions (mechanical or pharmacological). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine and intraovarian infusion/injection of platelet-rich plasma in infertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Epistemonikos database in January 2023. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the trial authors and experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the application of PRP in the uterine cavity, ovaries, or both versus no intervention, placebo, or any other intervention (either mechanical or pharmacological) in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including use of the updated risk of bias tool (RoB 2). The primary outcomes were live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) and miscarriage. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, complications of the procedure, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, preterm delivery, and fetal abnormality. We estimated the average effect of the interventions by fitting a Der Simonian-Laird's random-effects meta-analysis model. We reported pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We restricted the primary analyses to trials at low risk of bias for the outcomes and performed sensitivity analyses that included all studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 parallel-group RCTs that recruited a total of 1069 women. We identified three different comparison groups. Using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for almost all outcomes. Intrauterine injection/infusion of platelet-rich plasma versus no intervention or placebo Nine studies evaluated intrauterine PRP versus no intervention or placebo. Eight included women with at least two or three previous implantation failures. Only one was assessed at low risk of bias for each outcome. This study provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP injection versus no intervention on live birth (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.14; 94 women) and miscarriage (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.09; 94 women). If the likelihood of live birth following no intervention is assumed to be 17%, then the likelihood following intrauterine PRP would be 7% to 40%; and if the risk of miscarriage following no intervention is 4%, then the risk following intrauterine PRP would be 1% to 24%. When we analyzed all studies (regardless of risk of bias), we found very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with placebo or no intervention on live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.86; I² = 54%; 6 studies, 564 women) and miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.01; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 504 women). The study at low risk of bias provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with no intervention on clinical pregnancy (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.76; 94 women) and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.95; 94 women). The synthesis of all studies provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with placebo or no intervention on clinical pregnancy (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.27; I² = 24%; 9 studies, 824 women), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.68, 95% CI 0.81 to 8.88; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 240 women), and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.95; 1 study, 94 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intrauterine infusion of PRP may increase the risk of preterm delivery compared with no intervention (OR 8.02, 95% CI 1.72 to 37.33; 1 study, 120 women; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported pain, infection, allergic reaction, fetal growth restriction, or fetal abnormality. Intrauterine infusion of platelet-rich plasma versus intrauterine infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor Two RCTs evaluated intrauterine PRP versus intrauterine granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF); both included women with thin endometrium, and neither was judged at low risk of bias for any outcome. We are uncertain about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with intrauterine G-CSF on live birth (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.81; 1 study, 132 women; very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage (OR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.96; 1 study, 132 women; very low-certainty evidence), and clinical pregnancy (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.35; 2 studies, 172 women; very low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported adverse outcomes other than miscarriage. Intraovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma versus no intervention One RCT evaluated PRP injection into both ovaries versus no intervention; it was judged at high risk of bias for the two outcomes it reported. We are uncertain about the effect of intraovarian PRP injection compared with no intervention on ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.63; 73 women; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.60; 73 women; very low-certainty evidence). The study examined no safety outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about the effect of intrauterine or intraovarian administration of PRP on outcomes of assisted reproduction technology in infertile women. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution. Only one of the 12 included studies was judged at low risk of bias. Other limitations of the included trials were failure to report live birth, poor reporting of methods, lack of prospective protocol registration, low precision due to the small number of enrolled participants, indirectness due to the specific subpopulations and settings studied, and insufficient or absent safety data.
Assuntos
Aborto Espontâneo , Infertilidade Feminina , Nascido Vivo , Plasma Rico em Plaquetas , Taxa de Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Técnicas de Reprodução Assistida , Injeções de Esperma Intracitoplásmicas , Humanos , Feminino , Gravidez , Nascido Vivo/epidemiologia , Injeções de Esperma Intracitoplásmicas/métodos , Infertilidade Feminina/terapia , Viés , Fertilização in vitro/métodos , Útero , Transferência Embrionária/métodos , Indução da Ovulação/métodos , Implantação do Embrião , Ovário , Gravidez MúltiplaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite substantial improvements in the success of assisted reproduction techniques (ART), live birth rates may remain consistently low, and practitioners may look for innovative treatments to improve the outcomes. The injection of embryo culture supernatant in the endometrial cavity can be undertaken at various time intervals before embryo transfer. It provides an altered endometrial environment through the secretion of factors considered to facilitate implantation. It is proposed that injection of the supernatant into the endometrial cavity prior to embryo transfer will stimulate the endometrium and provide better conditions for implantation to take place. An increased implantation rate would subsequently increase rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth, but current robust evidence on the efficacy of injected embryo culture supernatant is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: Our search strategies were designed with the help of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Information Specialist. We sought to identify all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) meeting inclusion criteria. Searches were performed on 2 December 2019. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, trials registries and grey literature. We made further searches in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) fertility assessment and treatment guidelines. We handsearched reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and RCTs, together with searches of PubMed and Google for any recent trials that have not yet been indexed in the major databases. We had no language or location restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs testing the use of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer during an ART cycle, compared with the non-use of this intervention, the use of placebo or the use of any other similar drug. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from studies and attempted to contact the authors where data were missing. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model. Our primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We found five RCTs suitable for inclusion in the review (526 women analysed). We made two comparisons: embryo culture supernatant use versus standard care or no intervention; and embryo culture supernatant use versus culture medium. All studies were published as full-text articles. Data derived from the reports or through direct communication with investigators were available for the final meta-analysis performed. The GRADE evidence quality of studies ranged from very low-quality to moderate-quality. Factors reducing evidence quality included high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear risk of publication bias and selective outcome reporting, serious inconsistency among study outcomes, and serious imprecision due to wide confidence intervals (CIs) and low numbers of events. Comparison 1. Endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer versus standard care or no intervention: One study reported live birth only and two reported the composite outcome live birth and ongoing pregnancy. We are uncertain whether endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer during an ART cycle improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to no intervention (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.70; 3 RCTs; n = 340, I2 = 84%; very low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 42%, the chance following the endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer would vary between 22% and 81%. We are also uncertain whether the endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant could decrease miscarriage rates, compared to no intervention (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.78, 4 RCTs, n = 430, I2 = 58%, very low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of miscarriage following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 9%, the chance following injection of embryo culture supernatant would vary between 3% and 30%. Concerning the secondary outcomes, we are uncertain whether the injection of embryo culture supernatant prior to embryo transfer could increase clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.61; 5 RCTs; n = 526, I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), decrease ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; n = 250; 2 RCTs; I2 = 41%; very low-quality evidence), decrease multiple pregnancy rates (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.83; 2 RCTs; n = 150; I2 = 63%; very low-quality evidence), or decrease preterm delivery rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.42; 1 RCT; n = 90; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), compared to no intervention. Finally, there may have been little or no difference in foetal abnormality rates between the two groups (OR 3.10, 95% CI 0.12 to 79.23; 1 RCT; n = 60; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Comparison 2. Endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant versus endometrial injection of culture medium before embryo transfer We are uncertain whether the use of embryo culture supernatant improves clinical pregnancy rates, compared to the use of culture medium (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.46; n = 96; 1 RCT; very low-quality evidence). No study reported live birth/ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic or multiple pregnancy, preterm delivery or foetal abnormalities. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether the addition of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer as a routine method for the treatment of women undergoing ART can improve pregnancy outcomes. This conclusion is based on current available data from five RCTs, with evidence quality ranging from very low to moderate across studies. Further large well-designed RCTs reporting on live births and adverse clinical outcomes are still required to clarify the exact role of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer.
Assuntos
Meios de Cultura , Técnicas de Cultura Embrionária , Endométrio , Infertilidade Feminina/terapia , Técnicas de Reprodução Assistida , Aborto Espontâneo/epidemiologia , Viés , Transferência Embrionária , Feminino , Humanos , Injeções/métodos , Nascido Vivo , Gravidez , Taxa de Gravidez , Gravidez Ectópica/epidemiologia , Gravidez Múltipla/estatística & dados numéricos , Nascimento Prematuro/epidemiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite substantial improvements in the success of treatments through assisted reproduction technologies (ART), live birth rates remain constantly low, and practitioners are seeking aetiologic treatments to improve the outcomes.Local inflammatory response is believed to contribute to implantation failure, where prostaglandins may increase uterine contractions and decrease uterine receptivity, decreasing the possibility of an IVF cycle leading to successful embryo transfer. In this context, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been employed to inhibit the negative prostaglandin effect. They are often offered in clinical practice to improve ART outcomes, but current robust evidence on their efficacy is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as co-treatments in infertile women undergoing assisted reproduction, in terms of improving live birth and miscarriage rates. SEARCH METHODS: We designed the search using standard Cochrane methods and performed it on databases from their inception to 20 February 2019.We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the trial registers for ongoing and registered trials, grey literature and treatment guidelines. We handsearched reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and RCTs, and PubMed and Google for any recent trials. There were no restrictions by language or country of origin. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs on the use of NSAIDs as co-treatment during an ART cycle compared with no use or the use of placebo or any other similar drug, along with the comparison of any NSAID to another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We found 11 RCTs (1884 women) suitable for inclusion in the review. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. The main limitations in the overall quality of the evidence were high risk of bias, unexplained heterogeneity and serious imprecision and indirectness.There were no data on our primary outcome - live birth per woman randomised - in any review comparisons.NSAIDs vs. placebo/no treatmentWe are uncertain of an effect on ongoing pregnancy when NSAIDs were compared to placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.59; 4 studies, 1159 participants; I² = 53%; very low quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of NSAIDs is estimated to be between 12% and 24%. Subgroup analysis according to the type of NSAID yielded similar results.We are also uncertain of an effect on miscarriage rates when NSAIDs were compared to placebo/no treatment (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.16; 4 studies, 525 participants; I² = 43%; very low quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of miscarriage following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 21%, the chance following the use of NSAIDs is estimated to be between 7% and 27%. The results were similar when two studies were excluded due to high risk of bias.Concerning the secondary outcomes, we are uncertain of an effect on clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.52; 6 studies, 1570 participants; I² = 49%; low-quality evidence); on ectopic pregnancy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.89; 1 study, 72 participants); on multiple pregnancy (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.67; 1 study, 180 participants); and on side effects (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.02 to 119.35; 3 studies, 418 participants; I² = 79%). The evidence suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 30%, the chance following the use of NSAIDs is estimated to be between 31% and 45%. If the chance of ectopic pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 5%, the chance following the use of NSAIDs is estimated to be between 0.3% and 31%. If the chance of multiple pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 1%, the chance following the use of NSAIDs is estimated to be between 0.2 % and 24%.There were no cases of congenital anomalies during antenatal ultrasound screening of the women in one study.NSAID vs. another NSAIDOnly one study compared piroxicam with indomethacin: we are uncertain of an effect on ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.00; 1 study, 170 participants; very low quality evidence); and on miscarriage (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.28; 1 study, 170 participants; very low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy following indomethacin is assumed to be 20%, the chance following the use of piroxicam is estimated to be between 13% and 40%; while for miscarriage, the evidence suggests that if the chance following indomethacin is assumed to be 12%, the chance following the use of piroxicam is estimated to be between 5% and 27%.Similar results were reported for clinical pregnancy (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.63; 1 study, 170 participants; very low quality evidence).There were no data for the other outcomes specified in this review.NSAID vs. aspirinNo study reported this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently we are uncertain of an effect of the routine use of NSAIDs as co-treatments in infertile women undergoing assisted reproduction in order to improve ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage rates. This is based on available data from RCTs, where very low quality evidence showed that there is no single outcome measure demonstrating a benefit with their use. Further large, well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials reporting on live births are required to clarify the exact role of NSAIDs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) occurs in 4% to 7% of all women of reproductive age and 50% of women presenting with subfertility. Subfertility affects 15% to 20% of couples trying to conceive. A significant proportion of these women ultimately need assisted reproductive technology (ART). In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is one of the assisted reproduction techniques employed to raise the chances of achieving a pregnancy. For the standard IVF technique, stimulating follicle development and growth before oocyte retrieval is essential, for which a large number of different methods combining gonadotrophins with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist are used. In women with PCOS, the supra-physiological doses of gonadotrophins used for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) often result in an exaggerated ovarian response, characterised by the development of a large cohort of follicles of uneven quality, retrieval of immature oocytes, and increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). A potentially effective intervention for women with PCOS-related subfertility involves earlier retrieval of immature oocytes at the germinal-vesicle stage followed by in vitro maturation (IVM). So far, the only data available have derived from observational studies and non-randomised clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of IVM followed by IVF or ICSI versus conventional IVF or ICSI among women with PCOS undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH METHODS: This is the second update of this review. We performed the search on 17 April 2018.The search was designed with the help of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Information Specialist, for all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs).We searched the the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the trial registers for ongoing and registered trials and the Open Grey database for grey literature from Europe. We made further searches in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) fertility assessment and treatment guidelines. We handsearched reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and RCTs, together with PubMed and Google for any recent trials that have not yet been indexed in the major databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs on the intention to perform IVM before IVF or ICSI compared with conventional IVF or ICSI for subfertile women with PCOS, irrespective of language and country of origin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from studies, and attempted to contact the authors of studies for which data were missing. Our primary outcomes were live birth per woman randomised and miscarriage. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We found two RCTs suitable for inclusion in the review and six ongoing trials that have not yet reported results. Both included studies were published as abstracts in international conferences.Both studies were at unclear or high risk of bias for most of the seven domains assessed. Common problems were unclear reporting of study methods and lack of blinding. The main limitations in the overall quality of the evidence were high risk of bias and serious imprecision.There were no data on the primary outcomes of this review, namely live birth per woman randomised and miscarriage.Both studies reported clinical pregnancy rate: there was evidence of an effect between IVM and IVF, favouring the former (odds ratio 3.10, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 9.00; 71 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). The incidence of OHSS was zero in both studies in both groups.There were no data for the other outcomes specified in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Though promising data on the in vitro maturation (IVM) technique have been published, unfortunately there is still no evidence from properly conducted randomised controlled trials upon which to base any practice recommendations regarding IVM before in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection for women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Regarding our secondary outcomes, very low-quality evidence showed that clinical pregnancy was higher with IVM when compared to IVF, whereas the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was zero in both studies in both groups. We are awaiting the results of six ongoing trials and eagerly anticipate further evidence from good-quality trials in the field.
Assuntos
Fertilização in vitro/métodos , Técnicas de Maturação in Vitro de Oócitos/métodos , Infertilidade Feminina/etiologia , Recuperação de Oócitos/métodos , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico/complicações , Taxa de Gravidez , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Injeções de Esperma IntracitoplásmicasRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In order to overcome the low effectiveness of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and the high incidence of multiple births, metabolomics is proposed as a non-invasive method to assess oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity, and facilitate a targeted subfertility treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity for improving live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates in women undergoing ART, compared to conventional methods of assessment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trial registers (Feburary 2018). We also examined the reference lists of primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications, and abstracts of major scientific meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity in women undergoing ART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (composite outcome) and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple and ectopic pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and foetal abnormalities. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials with a total of 924 women, with a mean age of 33 years. All assessed the role of metabolomic investigation of embryo viability. We found no RCTs that addressed the metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality or endometrial receptivity.We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between metabolomic and non-metabolomic assessment of embryos for rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35, I² = 0%; four RCTs; N = 924), live birth alone (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.44, I² = 0%; three RCTs; N = 597), or miscarriage (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.82; I² = 0%; three RCTs; N = 869). A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25, I² = 0%; two RCTs; N = 744). Our findings suggested that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was 36% in the non-metabolomic group, it would be between 32% and 45% with the use of metabolomics.We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.45; I²= 44%; four trials; N = 924) or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.19; I² = 0%; two RCTs, N = 180). Rates of cycle cancellation were higher in the metabolomics group (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.69; I² = 51%; two RCTs; N = 744, low quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.07; one RCT; N = 417), and foetal abnormality (no events; one RCT; N = 125). Data were lacking on other adverse effects. A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for clinical pregnancy (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.38; I² = 40%; two RCTs; N = 744).The overall quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. Limitations included serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods, attrition bias, selective reporting, and other biases), imprecision, and inconsistency across trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: According to current trials in women undergoing ART, there is no evidence to show that metabolomic assessment of embryos before implantation has any meaningful effect on rates of live birth, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy or foetal abnormalities. The existing evidence varied from very low to low-quality. Data on other adverse events were sparse, so we could not reach conclusions on these. At the moment, there is no evidence to support or refute the use of this technique for subfertile women undergoing ART. Robust evidence is needed from further RCTs, which study the effects on live birth and miscarriage rates for the metabolomic assessment of embryo viability. Well designed and executed trials are also needed to study the effects on oocyte quality and endometrial receptivity, since none are currently available.
Assuntos
Aborto Espontâneo/epidemiologia , Nascido Vivo/epidemiologia , Metabolômica/métodos , Resultado da Gravidez , Taxa de Gravidez , Gravidez Múltipla/estatística & dados numéricos , Técnicas de Reprodução Assistida , Adulto , Endométrio/fisiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Oócitos , Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In order to overcome the low effectiveness of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and the high incidence of multiple births, metabolomics is proposed as a non-invasive method to assess oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity, and facilitate a targeted subfertility treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity for improving live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates in women undergoing ART, compared to conventional methods of assessment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trial registers (November 2016). We also examined the reference lists of primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications, and abstracts of major scientific meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity in women undergoing ART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (composite outcome) and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple and ectopic pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and foetal abnormalities. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials with a total of 802 women, with a mean age of 33 years. All assessed the role of metabolomic investigation of embryo viability. We found no RCTs that addressed the metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality or endometrial receptivity.We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between metabolomic and non-metabolomic assessment of embryos for rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.48; I² = 0%; four RCTs; N = 802), or miscarriage (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.78; I² = 0%; two RCTs; N = 434). A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.38; I² = 0%; two RCTs; N = 621). Our findings suggested that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was 36% in the non-metabolomic group, it would be between 32% and 45% with the use of metabolomics.We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.62; I²= 26%; four trials; N = 802), or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.23; I² = 0%; two RCTs, N = 181). There was very low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 3.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 83.40; one RCT; N = 309), and foetal abnormalities (no events; one RCT; N = 125), and very low-quality evidence of higher rates of cycle cancellation in the metabolomics group (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.69; I² = 51%; two RCTs; N = 744). Data were lacking on other adverse effects. A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for clinical pregnancy (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.57; I² = 0%; two RCTs; N = 621).The overall quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. Limitations included serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods, attrition bias, selective reporting, and other biases), imprecision, and inconsistency across trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: According to current trials in women undergoing ART, there is insufficient evidence to show that metabolomic assessment of embryos before implantation has any meaningful effect on rates of live birth, ongoing pregnancy, or miscarriage rates. The existing evidence varied from very low to low-quality. Data on adverse events were sparse, so we could not reach conclusions on these. At the moment, there is no evidence to support or refute the use of this technique for subfertile women undergoing ART. Robust evidence is needed from further RCTs, which study the effects on live birth and miscarriage rates for the metabolomic assessment of embryo viability. Well designed and executed trials are also needed to study the effects on oocyte quality and endometrial receptivity, since none are currently available.
Assuntos
Aborto Espontâneo/epidemiologia , Nascido Vivo/epidemiologia , Metabolômica/métodos , Resultado da Gravidez , Taxa de Gravidez , Gravidez Múltipla/estatística & dados numéricos , Técnicas de Reprodução Assistida , Adulto , Endométrio/fisiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Oócitos , Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although insulinomas are very rare tumors, they are the most common pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. The incidence in general population is 1-4 per 1,000,000 yearly but the incidence is higher in autopsy studies. The malignancy of insulinomas is difficult to be predicted on the basis of their histological features, and the current WHO classification has been re-evaluated. This review aimed to summarize classical knowledge with current trends in the diagnosis and treatment of insulinomas. DATA SOURCES: A Medline search using terms "insulinoma", "treatment" and "neuroendocrine tumors" was conducted. Additional references were sourced from key articles. RESULTS: Surgery is the treatment of choice for insulinoma and has an extremely high success rate. Medical treatment is also available but only for patients who are unable or unwilling to undergo surgical treatment. Preoperative localization is necessary for planning the surgical approach. Many methods exist for localization of an insulinoma and can be invasive and non-invasive. The combination of biphasic thin section helical CT and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has an almost 100% sensitivity in localizing insulinomas. Laparoscopic ultrasound is mandatory to localize intraoperatively these tumors. EUS-guided fine needle tattooing is an alternative method of localization in case of lack of laparoscopic ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection for benign insulinomas is the procedure of choice, whereas pancreatectomy is reserved for large, potentially malignant tumors.
Assuntos
Diagnóstico por Imagem/tendências , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema Digestório/tendências , Insulinoma , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Biópsia por Agulha Fina/tendências , Diagnóstico por Imagem/história , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema Digestório/história , Endossonografia/tendências , História do Século XX , Humanos , Insulinoma/diagnóstico , Insulinoma/história , Insulinoma/cirurgia , Laparoscopia/tendências , Pancreatectomia/tendências , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/história , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirurgia , Seleção de Pacientes , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Tomografia Computadorizada Espiral/tendências , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Penetrating injuries of the abdomen and spinal canal that involve organic material of animal origin are extremely rare and derive from domestic and wild animal attacks or fish attacks. CASE PRESENTATION: In this case report we present the unique, as far as the literature is concerned, unprovoked woman's injury to the abdomen by a swordfish. There are only four cases of swordfish attacks on humans in the literature - one resulted to thoracic trauma, two to head trauma and one to knee trauma, one of which was fatal - none of which were unprovoked. Three victims were professional or amateur fishermen whereas in the last reported case the victim was a bather as in our case. Our case is the only case where organic debris of animal's origin remained in the spinal canal after penetrating trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Although much has been written about the management of penetrating abdominal and spinal cord trauma, controversy remains about the optimal management. Moreover, there is little experience in the management of patients with such spinal injuries, due to the fact that such cases are extremely rare. In this report we focus on the patient's treatment with regard to abdominal and spinal trauma and present a review of the literature.
Assuntos
Traumatismos Abdominais/etiologia , Traumatismos da Coluna Vertebral/etiologia , Ferimentos Perfurantes/etiologia , Traumatismos Abdominais/cirurgia , Adulto , Animais , Feminino , Peixes , Humanos , Traumatismos da Coluna Vertebral/cirurgia , Ferimentos Perfurantes/cirurgiaRESUMO
The aim of the present study was to identify the sexual behavior, attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge on sexually transmitted infections (STIs) focused on human papilloma virus (HPV) in the Greek adolescent population. The participants were 4547 adolescents, a representative sample for Greek territory with a mean age of 17 years. After written permission from Greek ministry of education each student completed a questionnaire with 36 questions. The fields covered were demographic characteristics, sexual life data, and basic knowledge on HPV. In the present study, 43% and 75% of the participants knew about HPV or cervical cancer, while more than 6 out of 10 did not know the association between the 2. More than 60% of the participants could not answer correctly neither about HPV infection and cervical cancer frequency in sexually active women, nor about protection methods against HPV and cervical cancer. This study shows that the low vaccination coverage of the Greek population may be due to lack of information and awareness of the adolescents and their parents. It is our duty to increase our efforts in order to better educate the population and vaccinate the population as early as possible in their reproductive years.
Assuntos
Infecções por Papillomavirus , Comportamento Sexual , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero , Vacinação , Adolescente , Comportamento do Adolescente , Feminino , Grécia/epidemiologia , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Papillomaviridae/patogenicidade , Infecções por Papillomavirus/complicações , Infecções por Papillomavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Papillomavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Papillomavirus/psicologia , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/psicologia , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Comportamento Sexual/psicologia , Comportamento Sexual/estatística & dados numéricos , Infecções Sexualmente Transmissíveis/epidemiologia , Infecções Sexualmente Transmissíveis/prevenção & controle , Infecções Sexualmente Transmissíveis/psicologia , Estudantes/psicologia , Inquéritos e Questionários , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/epidemiologia , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/etiologia , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/psicologia , Vacinação/psicologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
Leiomyomas are the commonest benign tumor in the female reproductive tract. Even though their role on infertility is still questionable, evidence to date suggest that the anatomic location may be related to reproductive outcomes. Several possible mechanisms suggest that leiomyomas may affect fertility, especially in terms of the anatomical distortion of endometrial cavity, the abnormal uterine contractility, reduced blood supply to the endometrium and altered endometrial receptivity. The effect of leiomyomas on IVF outcomes has been the subject of many studies; however, a definitive direction is yet required to adjust clinical management accordingly. Management of leiomyomas is challenging in terms of clinical decision, especially among subfertile patients, since potential treatment complications and their consequences in endometrial dynamics should be also accounted. Expectant management is recommended for asymptomatic patients, whereas in symptomatic subfertile patients, medical and/ or surgical management is usually recommended.
Assuntos
Infertilidade Feminina/etiologia , Leiomioma/complicações , Neoplasias Uterinas/complicações , Endométrio/irrigação sanguínea , Endométrio/patologia , Feminino , Humanos , Leiomioma/patologia , Leiomioma/terapia , Contração Uterina/fisiologia , Neoplasias Uterinas/patologia , Neoplasias Uterinas/terapiaRESUMO
Background. Abdominal masses in female adolescents are uncommon. A rare cause of this condition is hematocolpos due to imperforate hymen. Case. We present a case of an unusually massive asymptomatic abdominal bulk in a 14-year-old female patient, who sought for medical advice after unusual abdominal pain lasting for few weeks. The patient was otherwise asymptomatic, apart from an unusual dramatic expansion of her abdominal wall during the last month. We describe the surgical management and the follow-up of the patient. Summary and Conclusion. Clinicians should keep in mind that an imperforate hymen can cause abdominal growth due to hematocolpos and include it in the differential diagnosis of such a clinical entity in female adolescents. 2D ultrasound is usually efficient for the confirmation of the diagnosis of hematocolpos, but 3D ultrasound is more accurate. Wide excision should be undertaken, as an initial approach, to avoid recurrence.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy has been established as the surgical procedure of choice for benign adrenal diseases. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma has been the subject of debate, due to potential systemic consequences of pneumoperitoneum in patients with catecholamine-secreting tumors and a perceived increased risk of malignancy for large-sized tumors. In this study we present our experience for laparoscopic resection of pheochromocytomas, and evaluate the safety of delayed adrenal vein ligation. METHODS: A total of 32 adrenalectomies for pheochromocytoma were performed between June 1997 and December 2009. Four paragangliomas, operated in the same period are not included in this series. All patients were investigated and operated on using an established departmental protocol. Preoperative diagnosis, operative details, complications, length of hospital stay, morbidity, and follow-up were documented from the hospital records of 200 patients who underwent 208 adrenalectomies for benign and malignant adrenal tumors in the same period. RESULTS: Thirty-two tumors were removed from 31 patients (17 men; mean age, 54 y; range, 19 to 72 y). One patient with MEN IIA underwent bilateral resection of pheochromocytomas in 2 stages. Tumor size in laparoscopic procedures ranged from 2.2 to 10.5 cm (mean, 4.97 cm). Operative time was from 55 to 210 minutes (mean, 110 min).Twenty-seven patients had sporadic disease (2 potentially malignant, 2 malignant), and 4 in the context of a familiar syndrome (2 MEN IIA syndrome, 1 Von Hippel Lindau syndrome and Recklinghausen disease, respectively). Twenty-four patients underwent laparoscopic adrenalectomy, 2 patients had open approach from the start for recurrent malignant pheochromocytoma and large benign tumor respectively, 1 patient had open approach due to inoperable malignant pheochromocytoma, and 4 patients had conversions from laparoscopic to open procedure. All patients with paragangliomas underwent open approach from the start. The mean hospital stay was 2 days (range, 1 to 3 d) for the laparoscopic procedures. All patients underwent late ligation of the main adrenal vein. Five patients received sodium nitroprusside intraoperatively to treat hypertension. One patient developed pulmonary embolism after the operation, and succumbed 1 month later. There were no recurrences for the benign tumors during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma although safe, should be converted to open for difficult dissection, to avoid tumor disruption, and recurrence. Hemodynamic instability can be prevented and is not influenced by early or late ligation of the adrenal vein. Delayed main adrenal vein ligation is a safe alternative to the "vein first" technique.