Enhancing surgical performance: the role of robotic surgery in myomectomies, a systematic review and metanalysis.

Examine the role, benefits, and limitations of robotic surgery in myomectomies compared to laparoscopic and open surgical approaches. This review sourced data from CENTRAL, Pubmed, Medline, and Embase up until May 1, 2023. Full articles comparing clinical outcomes of robotic myomectomy with open or laparoscopic procedures were included without language restriction. Initially, 2150 records were found. 24 studies were finally included for both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Two investigators independently assessed all reports following PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted using the software "Review Manager Version 5.4". Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Sensitivity analysis was conducted, when feasible. In a comparison between robotic and laparoscopic myomectomies, no significant difference was observed in fibroid weights and the size of the largest fibroid. Robotic myomectomy resulted in less blood loss, but transfusion rates were comparable. Both methods had similar complication rates and operative times, although some robotic studies showed longer durations. Conversion rates favored robotics. Hospital stays varied widely, with no overall significant difference, and pregnancy rates were similar between the two methods. When comparing robotic to open myomectomies, open procedures treated heavier and larger fibroids. They also had greater blood loss, but the robotic approach required fewer transfusions. The complication rate was slightly higher in open procedures. Open surgeries were generally faster, postoperative pain scores were similar, but hospital stays were longer for open procedures. Pregnancy rates were comparable for both robotic and open methods. Robotic surgery offers advancement in myomectomy procedures by offering enhanced exposure and dexterity, leading to reduced blood loss and improved patient outcomes. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023462348.

Guideline No. 446: Hysteroscopic Surgery in Fertility Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the indications, benefits, and risks of hysteroscopy in the management of patients with infertility and provide guidance to gynaecologists who manage common conditions in these patients. TARGET POPULATION: Patients with infertility (inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected intercourse) undergoing investigation and treatment. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Hysteroscopic surgery can be used to diagnose the etiology of infertility and improve fertility treatment outcomes. All surgery has risks and associated complications. Hysteroscopic surgery may not always improve fertility outcomes. All procedures have costs, which are borne either by the patient or their health insurance provider. EVIDENCE: We searched English-language articles from January 2010 to May 2021 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (see Appendix B for MeSH search terms). VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional recommendations). INTENDED AUDIENCE: Gynaecologists who manage common conditions in patients with infertility. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: When offering hysteroscopic surgery to patients with infertility, ensure it improves the live birth rate. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS.

The POPI-Plus tool: prediction model of outcome of pregnancy in in vitro fertilization from a large retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To create a tool that accurately predicts live birth chances after a positive pregnancy test after elective single embryo transfer (ET). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: CHUM hospital and Ovo clinic in Montreal, Canada. PATIENT(S): Patients with a positive pregnancy test result who underwent their first single ET after in vitro fertilization (IVF) at the CHUM hospital and Ovo clinic in Montreal, Canada, from 2012 to 2016 were selected. A total of 1,995 patients were included in this study. INTERVENTION(S): The data from both centers were combined and divided into training (70%, n = 1,398) and validation (30%, n = 597) sets. The predictive model was developed using backward selection method for the following variables: age of patient at egg retrieval; log ß-human chorionic gonadotropin (ß-hCG) (ß-hCG) 1; log ß-hCG 2; and IVF treatment type. Moreover, the classification tree, random forest, and neural network models were generated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The measured outcomes were live birth (live fetus ≥24 weeks of gestation) and nonviable pregnancies. The performance of all models was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULT(S): Advancing age was negatively correlated with live birth. The odds ratio (OR) of age of patient at the time of egg retrieval was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.99). The log ß-hCG 1 and log ß-hCG 2 were positively correlated with live birth in the univariate analysis (OR, 4.15 [95% CI, 3.19-5.39], and OR, 3.84 [95% CI, 2.99-4.93], respectively). The ß-hCG 1 level needed for a successful pregnancy was lower in frozen ET and modified natural IVF than in simulated IVF (OR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91], and OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26-0.95], respectively). The best performance in terms of the AUC was the updated logistic model: POPI-Plus. The AUC values were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73-0.79) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82) for the training and validation data, respectively. The other models (classification tree, random forest, and neural network) also performed adequately, with an AUC of ≥0.7, but remained below POPI-Plus. An open-access calculator was generated and can be found on the website of the University of Montreal on the following link: https://deptobsgyn.umontreal.ca/departement/divisions/medecine-et-biologie-de-la-reproduction/the-popi-plus-tool/. CONCLUSION(S): The POPI-Plus tool offers individualized counseling for patients after an initial positive ß-hCG test result. Future studies will assess its impact on patient anxiety while awaiting viability ultrasound and perform prospective validation on new patients.

Guideline No. 435: Minimally Invasive Surgery in Fertility Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and risks of minimally invasive procedures in the management of patients with infertility and provide guidance to gynaecologists who manage common conditions in these patients. TARGET POPULATION: Patients with infertility (inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected intercourse) undergoing investigation and treatment. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Minimally invasive reproductive surgery can be used to treat infertility, improve fertility treatment outcomes, or preserve fertility. All surgery has risks and associated complications. Reproductive surgery may not improve fertility outcomes and may, in some instances, damage ovarian reserve. All procedures have costs, which are borne either by the patient or their health insurance provider. EVIDENCE: We searched English-language articles from January 2010 to May 2021 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (see Appendix A for MeSH search terms). VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix B (Tables B1 for definitions and B2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations). INTENDED AUDIENCE: Gynaecologists who manage common conditions in patients with infertility. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS.

Risk factors for the development of endometrial fluid in women undergoing IVF: A retrospective cohort study✰.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Presence of endometrial fluid (EF) is a poorly understood pathology and remains a challenge for clinicians, as very little data exists to explain its consequences and treatment. Our objective was to investigate risk factors for EF during IVF. DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study included all women with a freeze all embryos cycle (FAE) for EF between 2010 and 2016 at a university-affiliated private IVF center. Controls (2:1) were randomly selected out of the database of our fresh autologous IVF cycles during the same period. Main outcome measures were possible risk factors for EF, comprising polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), previous pelvic or endometrial surgery (polypectomy or synechia removal), cesarean section, myomas and severe endometriosis. A logistic regression model was used to assess independent risk factors for EF. RESULTS: Out of 9000 IVF cycles, 1204 were FAE cycles, among which we identified 86 EF cases. We then selected 171 controls. Independent risk factors for presence of EF were a history of previous myomectomy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 19.77, 95%CI [4.01-97.53]), severe endometriosis (aOR 5.97, 95%CI [2.09-17.05]), PCOS (aOR 5.72, 95%CI [2.66-12.33]) and previous cesarean section (aOR 5.17, 95%CI [1.84-14.49]). CONCLUSIONS: Our results are not only confirming the association between PCOS, severe endometriosis, previous cesarean procedure and EF, but also reporting for the first time an association between previous myomectomy and EF.