Towards comprehensive management of symptomatic endometriosis: beyond the dichotomy of medical versus surgical treatment.

Except when surgery is the only option because of organ damage, the presence of suspicious lesions, or the desire to conceive, women with endometriosis-associated pain often face a choice between medical and surgical treatment. In theory, the description of the potential benefits and potential harms of the two alternatives should be standardized, unbiased, and based on strong evidence, enabling the patient to make an informed decision. However, doctor's opinion, intellectual competing interests, local availability of specific services and (mis)information obtained from social media, and online support groups can influence the type of advice given and affect patients' choices. This is compounded by the paucity of robust data from randomized controlled trials, and the anxiety of distressed women who are eager to do anything to alleviate their disabling symptoms. Vulnerable patients are more likely to accept the suggestions of their healthcare provider, which can lead to unbalanced and physician-centred decisions, whether in favour of either medical or surgical treatment. In general, treatments should be symptom-orientated rather than lesion-orientated. Medical and surgical modalities appear to be similarly effective in reducing pain symptoms, with medications generally more successful for severe dysmenorrhoea and surgery more successful for severe deep dyspareunia caused by fibrotic lesions infiltrating the posterior compartment. Oestrogen-progestogen combinations and progestogen monotherapies are generally safe and well tolerated, provided there are no major contraindications. About three-quarters of patients with superficial peritoneal and ovarian endometriosis and two-thirds of those with infiltrating fibrotic lesions are ultimately satisfied with their medical treatment although the remainder may experience side effects, which may result in non-compliance. Surgery for superficial and ovarian endometriosis is usually safe. When fibrotic infiltrating lesions are present, morbidity varies greatly depending on the skill of the individual surgeon, the need for advanced procedures, such as bowel resection and ureteral reimplantation, and the availability of expert colorectal surgeons and urologists working together in a multidisciplinary approach. The generalizability of published results is adequate for medical treatment but very limited for surgery. Moreover, on the one hand, hormonal drugs induce disease remission but do not cure endometriosis, and symptom relapse is expected when the drugs are discontinued; on the other hand, the same drugs should be used after lesion excision, which also does not cure endometriosis, to prevent an overall cumulative symptom and lesion recurrence rate of 10% per postoperative year. Therefore, the real choice may not be between medical treatment and surgery, but between medical treatment alone and surgery plus postoperative medical treatment. The experience of pain in women with endometriosis is a complex phenomenon that is not exclusively based on nociception, although the role of peripheral and central sensitization is not fully understood. In addition, trauma, and especially sexual trauma, and pelvic floor disorders can cause or contribute to symptoms in many individuals with chronic pelvic pain, and healthcare providers should never take for granted that diagnosed or suspected endometriosis is always the real, or the sole, origin of the referred complaints. Alternative treatment modalities are available that can help address most of the additional causes contributing to symptoms. Pain management in women with endometriosis may be more than a choice between medical and surgical treatment and may require comprehensive care by a multidisciplinary team including psychologists, sexologists, physiotherapists, dieticians, and pain therapists. An often missing factor in successful treatment is empathy on the part of healthcare providers. Being heard and understood, receiving simple and clear explanations and honest communication about uncertainties, being invited to share medical decisions after receiving detailed and impartial information, and being reassured that a team member will be available should a major problem arise, can greatly increase trust in doctors and transform a lonely and frustrating experience into a guided and supported journey, during which coping with this chronic disease is gradually learned and eventually accepted. Within this broader scenario, patient-centred medicine is the priority, and whether or when to resort to surgery or choose the medical option remains the prerogative of each individual woman.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes of school-age children conceived after hysterosalpingography with oil-based or water-based iodinated contrast: long-term follow-up of a nationwide randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does preconceptional exposure to oil-based iodinated contrast media during hysterosalpingography (HSG) impact children's neurodevelopment compared with exposure to water-based alternatives? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our study found no large-sized effects for neurodevelopment in children with preconceptional exposure to oil-based iodinated contrast media during HSG compared with water-based alternatives. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HSG is widely used as a diagnostic tool in the female fertility work-up. Tubal flushing with oil-based iodinated contrast has been shown to enhance fertility outcomes in couples with unexplained infertility, increasing the chances of pregnancy and live birth compared with water-based alternatives. However, oil-based contrast contains higher doses of iodine and has a longer half-life, and concerns exist that iodinated contrast media can affect women's iodine status and cause temporary (sub)clinical hypothyroidism in mothers and/or foetuses. Considering that thyroid hormones are vital to embryonal and foetal brain development, oil-based contrast media use could increase the risk of impaired neurodevelopment in children conceived shortly after HSG. Here we examine neurodevelopmental outcomes in school-aged children conceived after HSG. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a long-term follow-up of the H2Oil trial in which oil-based or water-based contrast was used during HSG (Netherlands; 2012-2014; NTR3270). Of 369 children born <6 months after HSG in the study, we contacted the mothers of 140 children who gave consent to be contacted for follow-up. The follow-up study took place from January to July 2022 (NCT05168228). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: The study included 69 children aged 6-9 years who were conceived after HSG with oil-based (n = 42) or water-based contrast (n = 27). The assessments targeted intelligence (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children), neurocognitive outcomes (computerized neurocognitive tests), behavioural functioning (parent and teacher questionnaires), and academic performance. Linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and parental educational attainment were employed to compare groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: School-aged children born to mothers after oil-based contrast HSG did not significantly differ from children born to mothers after water-based contrast HSG, in regards to intelligence, neurocognitive functioning, behavioural functioning, or academic performance, with the exception of better performance for visuomotor integration functions in children exposed to oil-based contrast preconception. After exploratory correction for multiple comparisons, none of the group differences was statistically significant. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The small sample size of this follow-up study limited statistical power. This study provides evidence for the absence of large-sized differences between preconceptional exposure to the two contrast media types but does not rule out more subtle effects on neurodevelopment compared to naturally conceived children without preconceptional exposure to HSG. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study contributes to our knowledge about the long-term effects of different types of iodinated contrast media used in fertility work-up, indicating that choosing oil-based over water-based iodinated contrast media is unlikely to have major effect on the long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of children conceived shortly after HSG. However, further research should focus on the overall safety of iodine exposure during HSG, comparing children conceived after HSG to those conceived naturally as both types of contrast contain high amounts of iodine. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original H2Oil randomized controlled trial was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic hospitals now merged into the Amsterdam University Medical Centre. The current follow-up study (Neuro-H2Oil) is funded through a research grant awarded to the authors by the Amsterdam Reproduction & Development (AR&D) research institute. S.K. is funded by a AMC MD/PhD Scholarship from the Amsterdam UMC. S.K. reports holding voluntary roles in the civil society organizations Universities Allied for Essential Medicines and People's Health Movement. V.M. reports receiving travel and speaker fees as well as research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring. K.D. reports receiving travel and speaker fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy, travel support and research funding from Merck, consultancy for Organon and Norgine, and holding stock from ObsEva. The other authors report no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05168228.

The effect of prior hysterosalpingo-foam sonography or hysterosalpingography on tubal patency: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) prior to hysterosalpingography (HSG) or HSG prior to HyFoSy affect visible tubal patency when compared HSG or HyFoSy alone? SUMMARY ANSWER: Undergoing either HyFoSy or HSG prior to tubal patency testing by the alternative method does not demonstrate a significant difference in visible tubal patency when compared to HyFoSy or HSG alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HyFoSy and HSG are two commonly used visual tubal patency tests with a high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for evaluating tubal patency. These tests may also improve fertility, although the underlying mechanism is still not fully understood. One of the hypotheses points to a dislodgment of mucus plugs that may have disrupted the patency of the Fallopian tubes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled FOAM study, in which women underwent tubal patency testing by HyFoSy and HSG, randomized for order of the procedure. Participants either had HyFoSy first and then HSG, or vice versa. Here, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of tubal patency testing by HyFoSy or HSG prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method on visible tubal patency, compared to each method alone. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Infertile women aged between 18 and 41 years scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible for participating in the FOAM study. Women with anovulatory cycles, endometriosis, or with a partner with male infertility were excluded. To evaluate the effect HyFoSy on tubal patency, we relied on HSG results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HSG in those who underwent and who did not undergo HyFoSy prior to their HSG (HyFoSy prior to HSG versus HSG alone). To evaluate the effect of HSG on tubal patency, we relied on HyFoSy results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HyFoSy in those who underwent and who did not undergo HSG prior to their HyFoSy (HSG prior to HyFoSy versus HyFoSy alone). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, we randomized 1160 women (576 underwent HyFoSy first followed by HSG, and 584 underwent HSG first followed by HyFoSy). Among the women randomized to HyFoSy prior to HSG, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HSG in 467/537 (87%) women, compared with 472/544 (87%) women who underwent HSG alone (risk difference 0.2%; 95% CI: -3.8% to 4.2%). Among the women randomized to HSG prior to HyFoSy, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HyFoSy in 394/471 (84%) women, compared with 428/486 (88%) women who underwent HyFoSy alone (risk difference -4.4%; 95% CI: -8.8% to 0.0%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results of this secondary analysis should be interpreted as exploratory and cannot be regarded as definitive evidence. Furthermore, it has to be noted that pregnancy outcomes were not considered in this analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Tubal patency testing by either HyFoSy or HSG, prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method does not significantly affect visible tubal patency, when compared to alternative method alone. This suggests that both methods may have comparable abilities to dislodge mucus plugs in the Fallopian tubes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data. H.R.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford University Press in the role of Deputy Editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board as an independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. M.v.W. is coordinating editor of Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology. B.W.J.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC (GNT1176437) and research funding from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Organon and Merck KGaA, and travel support from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports holding stocks of ObsEva. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring and travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Infertility in patients with uterine fibroids: a debate about the hypothetical mechanisms.

Fibroids are benign tumours of the myometrium and are the most common gynaecologic abnormality. Although most fibroids are asymptomatic, they can cause symptoms like heavy menstrual bleeding, pelvic pain, sexual dysfunction, pressure complaints, and infertility. The association between fibroids and infertility has been debated for decades. It is generally acknowledged that the closer the fibroid is to the uterine cavity and the endometrium lining, the more unfavourable effect it might have on fertility, reducing the odds for successful implantation and gestation. Based on the limited available literature, we propose and discuss seven hypotheses on the underlying mechanism by which fibroids may reduce fertility. (i) Fibroids can cause sexual dysfunction, as fibroids can cause dyspareunia, pelvic pain, and prolonged and heavy menstrual bleeding, which could interfere with sexual arousal and as a consequence the frequency of intercourse, resulting in a reduced probability of conception. (ii) Mechanical compression by fibroids on theinterstitial part of the fallopian tubes or deformation of uterine cavity could disturb oocyte and sperm transport. (iii) Fibroids can disturb peristalsis of the junctional zone in the myometrium, which could negatively influence oocyte and sperm transport as well as implantation. In addition, fibroids could induce a detrimental environment for implantation in other ways, by: (iv) changing the vagino-uterine microbiome; (v) disturbing the levels of inflammation and autophagy; (vi) inducing molecular changes in the endometrium; and (vii) inducing aberrant angiogenesis and altering the endometrial blood supply. After the discussion of these hypotheses, the implication of the influence of fibroids on early pregnancy loss is discussed. Surgical fibroid treatment is not tailored nor focussed on the pathophysiology of the fibroid; consequently it may be accompanied by recurrence of fibroids and risks of complications. Unravelling the pathogenic mechanisms about how fibroids influence fertility is essential to evolve classic surgical fibroid treatment. Instead of treatment of fibroid-related symptoms, the research should supports development of fibroid-targeted (pharmaceutical) treatment that is compatible with an active wish to become pregnant.

A better quality of life could be achieved by applying the endometriosis diet: a cross-sectional study in Dutch endometriosis patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the endometriosis diet positively affect quality of life (QoL) in women diagnosed with endometriosis? DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was performed, recruiting women using the website and online peer platforms from the Dutch Endometriosis Society. In total, 211 women with a self-reported diagnosis of endometriosis were included in the study. They completed a questionnaire on the six QoL domains based on the conversation tool 'My Positive Health'. Women who adhered to the endometriosis diet were compared with women who did not. A distinction was made between strict (score ≥8 on a scale of 0-10) and less strict adherence to the diet. RESULTS: A significantly higher score was seen in all six QoL domains in women who adhered to the endometriosis diet (n = 90) compared with women who did not (n = 121) (range P < 0.001 to P = 0.043). Furthermore, women with strict adherence (n = 48) compared to less strict adherence (n = 42) reported significantly higher scores in all six QoL domains (range P = 0.005 to 0.05). Women diagnosed with endometriosis more than 10 years ago (n = 13) adhered to the endometriosis diet significantly less often than women that were diagnosed more recently (n = 163; range P = 0.005 to 0.046). CONCLUSION: The endometriosis diet was associated with a better QoL in Dutch women with endometriosis. Strict adherence showed higher QoL scores compared with less strict adherence. Therefore, more research is needed to clarify the mechanism of this beneficial effect and to identify facilitators and barriers to dietary adjustments in patients with endometriosis.

Spontaneous haemoperitoneum in pregnancy: Nationwide surveillance and Delphi audit system.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence, diagnostic management strategies and clinical outcomes of women with spontaneous haemoperitoneum in pregnancy (SHiP) and reassess the definition of SHiP. DESIGN: A population-based cohort study using the Netherlands Obstetric Surveillance System (NethOSS). SETTING: Nationwide, the Netherlands. POPULATION: All pregnant women between April 2016 and April 2018. METHODS: This is a case study of SHiP using the monthly registry reports of NethOSS. Complete anonymised case files were obtained. A newly introduced online Delphi audit system (DAS) was used to evaluate each case, to make recommendations on improving the management of SHiP and to propose a new definition of SHiP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence and outcomes, lessons learned about clinical management and the critical appraisal of the current definition of SHiP. RESULTS: In total, 24 cases were reported. After a Delphi procedure, 14 cases were classified as SHiP. The nationwide incidence was 4.9 per 100 000 births. Endometriosis and conceiving after artificial reproductive techniques were identified as risk factors. No maternal and three perinatal deaths occurred. Based on the DAS, adequate imaging of free intra-abdominal fluid, and identifying and treating women with signs of hypovolemic shock could improve the early detection and management of SHiP. A revised definition of SHiP was proposed, excluding the need for surgical or radiological intervention. CONCLUSIONS: SHiP is a rare and easily misdiagnosed condition that is associated with high perinatal mortality. To improve care, better awareness among healthcare workers is needed. The DAS is a sufficient tool to audit maternal morbidity and mortality.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for endometriosis.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is medical therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) to reduce pain due to endometriosis. One of the adverse effects of GnRHas is a decreased bone mineral density. In addition to assessing the effect on pain, quality of life, most troublesome symptom and patients' satisfaction, the current review also evaluated the effect on bone mineral density and risk of adverse effects in women with endometriosis who use GnRHas versus other treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis and to determine the effects of GnRHas on bone mineral density of women with endometriosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the trial registries in May 2022 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) which compared GnRHas with other hormonal treatment options, including analgesics, danazol, intra-uterine progestogens, oral or injectable progestogens, gestrinone and also GnRHas compared with no treatment or placebo. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with add-back therapy (hormonal or non-hormonal) or calcium-regulation agents were also included in this review.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology as recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes are relief of overall pain and the objective measurement of bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, quality of life, improvement in the most troublesome symptoms and patient satisfaction.  Due to high risk of bias associated with some of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-two studies involving 7355 patients were included. The evidence was very low to low quality: the main limitations of all studies were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.  Trials comparing GnRHas versus no treatment  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus placebo There may be a decrease in overall pain, reported as pelvic pain scores (RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.24, 1 RCT, n = 87, low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea scores (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.16, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia scores (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 59, low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness scores (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.50, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. We are uncertain of the effect for pelvic induration, based on the results found after three months of treatment (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, 1 RCT, n = 81, low-certainty evidence). Besides, treatment with GnRHas may be associated with a greater incidence of hot flushes at three months of treatment (RR 3.08; 95% CI 1.89 to 5.01, 1 RCT, n = 100, low-certainty evidence). Trials comparing GnRHas versus danazol For overall pain, for women treated with either GnRHas or danazol, a subdivision was made between pelvic tenderness, partly resolved and completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect on relief of overall pain, when a subdivision was made for overall pain (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.66 to 1.06, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic pain (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.66, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.69, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.77 to 0.37, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic induration (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.39, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.38, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. For pelvic pain (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and pelvic induration (MD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), the complaints may decrease slightly after treatment with GnRHas, compared to danazol, for six months of treatment. Trials comparing GnRHas versus analgesics  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus intra-uterine progestogens We did not identify any low risk of bias studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents There may be a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months treatment with GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents for anterior-posterior spine (MD -7.00; 95% CI -7.53 to -6.47, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and lateral spine (MD -12.40; 95% CI -13.31 to -11.49, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For relief of overall pain, there may be a slight decrease in favour of treatment with GnRHas compared to placebo or oral or injectable progestogens. We are uncertain about the effect when comparing GnRHas with danazol, intra-uterine progestogens or gestrinone. For BMD, there may be a slight decrease when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to gestrinone. There was a bigger decrease of BMD in favour of GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. However, there may be a slight increase in adverse effects when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to placebo or gestrinone. Due to a very low to low certainty of the evidence, a wide range of outcome measures and a wide range of outcome measurement instruments, the results should be interpreted with caution.

The Effect of a Myomectomy on Myoma-related Symptoms and Quality of Life: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although it is assumed that myomectomy improves uterine myoma-related symptoms such as pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), validated measures are rarely reported. This study aimed to verify the effect of myomectomy on myoma-related symptoms. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: Our study included 241 patients with a myoma diagnosis and received a myomectomy between 2004 and 2018. Data were collected from the patient medical file and patients responded in 1 questionnaire. INTERVENTIONS: Transcervical resection of myoma (TCRM) and laparoscopic or abdominal myomectomy (LAM). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One year after TCRM, a significant number of women experienced symptom improvement for pelvic pain (79% [19/24, p = .01]) and HMB (89% [46/52, p <.001]). For other myoma-related symptoms, abdominal pressure (43%, 10/23), sexual complaints (67%, 2/3), infertility (56%, 10/18), and other complaints (83%, 5/6), improvements were not statistically significant. One year after LAM, a significant number of women experienced symptom improvement for pelvic pain (80%, 74/93), HMB (83%, 94/113), abdominal pressure (85%, 79/93), sexual complaints (77%, 36/47), and other complaints (91%, 40/44). One year after myomectomy, 47% (30/64) (TCRM) and 44% of women (78/177) (LAM) described no myoma-related symptoms. Most women (82% [172/217]) were satisfied with the postoperative result after 1 year and 53% (114/217) would have liked to receive the myomectomy earlier in life. Average quality of life (measured on a 10-point Likert scale) increased from 6.3 at baseline to 8.0 at 1 year after TCRM and from 6.2 to 8.0 1 year after LAM, resulting in a difference of 1.7 points (p <.001; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.3) and 1.9 points (p <.001; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.3), respectively. CONCLUSION: One year after myomectomy, most women have benefited from myomectomy, concluded by a significant number of women who experienced myoma-related symptom improvement, positive patient satisfaction, and a significant improvement in reported quality of life. Validation of results after conventional treatment such as myomectomy is essential in counseling patients for surgical treatment in today's evidence based practice. In addition, it is necessary to make an adequate comparison with new treatment options for myomas. To provide this, further research should preferably be conducted prospectively or by randomization.

The Relation between Patient-Centered Care and Quality of Life in Women with Endometriosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the hypothesis that experiences with patient-centered endometriosis care are related to the endometriosis-specific quality of life dimensions "emotional well-being" and "social support." DESIGN: A secondary regression analysis of two cross-sectional studies was conducted. Participants/Materials: In total, data from 300 women were eligible for analysis. The participating women all had surgically proven endometriosis. SETTING: The study was conducted in one secondary and two tertiary endometriosis clinics in the Netherlands. Questionnaires were disseminated between 2011 and 2016. METHODS: Both included studies investigated patient-centeredness of endometriosis care and endometriosis-specific quality of life using, respectively, the ENDOCARE questionnaire (ECQ) and the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP-30). To increase power, the regression analysis focused on the previously found relation between the ten dimensions of the ECQ and the EHP-30 domains "emotional well-being" and "social support" rather than all five EHP-30 domains. After the Bonferroni correction to limit type 1 errors, the adjusted p value was 0.003 (0.05/20). RESULTS: The participating women had a mean age of 35.7 years and had predominantly been diagnosed with moderate to severe endometriosis. None of the relations between patient-centered endometriosis care and the EHP-30 domain "emotional well-being" were significant. Three dimensions of patient-centered endometriosis care proved to be significantly related to the EHP-30 domain "social support": "information, communication, and education" (p < 0.001, beta = 0.436), "coordination and integration of care" (p = 0.001, beta = 0.307), and "emotional support and alleviation of fear and anxiety" (p = 0.002, beta = 0.259). LIMITATIONS: This cross-sectional study identified relations rather than proving causality between experiencing less patient-centeredness of care and having lower quality of life. Nevertheless, it is very tangible that some causality exists, either directly or indirectly (e.g., through empowerment) and that by improving patient-centeredness, quality of life might be improved as well. CONCLUSION: "Information, communication, and education"; "coordination and integration of care"; and "emotional support and alleviation of fear and anxiety" as dimensions of patient-centered endometriosis care are related to the quality of life domain "social support" of women with endometriosis. Improving the patient-centeredness of endometriosis care was already considered an important goal, but even more so given its relation with women's quality of life, which is increasingly considered the ultimate measure of health care quality. Quality improvement projects focusing on "information, communication, and education" are expected to impact women's quality of life the most.