When to Do Surgery and When Not to Do Surgery for Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to answer whether operative laparoscopy is an effective treatment in a woman with demonstrated endometriosis compared with alternative treatments. Moreover, we aimed to assess the risks of operative laparoscopy compared with those of alternatives. In addition, we aimed to systematically review the literature on the impact of patient preference on decision making around surgery. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINAHL, Scopus, OpenGrey, and Web of Science from inception through May 2019. In addition, a manual search of reference lists of relevant studies was conducted. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language describing a comparison between surgery and any other intervention were included, with particular reference to timing and its impact on pain and fertility. Studies reporting on keywords including, but not limited to, endometriosis, laparoscopy, pelvic pain, and infertility were included. In the anticipated absence of RCTs on patient preference, all original research on this topic was considered eligible. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: In total, 1990 studies were reviewed. Twelve studies were identified as being eligible for inclusion to assess outcomes of pain (n = 6), fertility (n = 7), quality of life (n = 1), and disease progression (n = 3). Seven studies of interest were identified to evaluate patient preferences. There is evidence that operative laparoscopy may improve overall pain levels at 6 months compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (risk ratio [RR], 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-4.34; p <.001; 2 RCTs, 102 participants; low-quality evidence). Because the quality of the evidence was very low, it is uncertain if operative laparoscopy improves live birth rates. Operative laparoscopy probably yields little or no difference regarding clinical pregnancy rates compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.99-1.92; p = .06; 4 RCTs, 624 participants; moderate-quality evidence). It is uncertain if operative laparoscopy yields a difference in adverse outcomes when compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.84-4.65; p = .12; 5 RCTs, 554 participants; very-low-quality evidence). No studies reported on the progression of endometriosis to a symptomatic state or progression of extent of disease in terms of volume of lesions and locations in asymptomatic women with endometriosis. We found no studies that reported on the timing of surgery. No quantitative or qualitative studies specifically aimed at elucidating the factors informing a woman's choice for surgery were identified. CONCLUSION: Operative laparoscopy may improve overall pain levels but may have little or no difference with respect to fertility-related or adverse outcomes when compared with diagnostic laparoscopy. Additional high-quality RCTs, including comparing surgery to medical management, are needed, and these should report adverse events as an outcome. Studies on patient preference in surgical decision making are needed (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration number: CRD42019135167).

Inositol for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Subfertile women are highly motivated to try different adjunctive therapies to have a baby, and the widespread perception is that dietary supplements such as myo-inositol (MI) and D-chiro-insoitol (DCI) are associated with only benefit, and not with harm. Many fertility clinicians currently prescribe MI for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) as pre-treatment to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or for ovulation induction; however no high-quality evidence is available to support this practice. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of inositol in subfertile women with a diagnosis of PCOS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation of inositol for reproductive outcomes among subfertile women with PCOS who are trying to conceive. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (to July 2018): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and AMED. We also checked reference lists and searched the clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose, or combination of oral inositol versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, or with a fertility agent, or with another type of inositol, among subfertile women with PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth and adverse effects; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and ovulation rates. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model, and we calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials involving 1472 subfertile women with PCOS who were receiving myo-inositol as pre-treatment to IVF (11 trials), or during ovulation induction (two trials). These studies compared MI versus placebo, no treatment/standard, melatonin, metformin, clomiphene citrate, or DCI. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality. The main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, inconsistency, and lack of reporting of clinically relevant outcomes such as live birth and adverse events.We are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rates when compared to standard treatment among women undergoing IVF (OR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.83; P = 0.14; 2 RCTs; 84 women; I² = 0%). Very low-quality evidence suggests that for subfertile women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF who have an expected live birth rate of 12%, the rate among women using MI would be between 9% and 51%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with a decrease in miscarriage rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.86; P = 0.02; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 66%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS with an expected miscarriage rate of 9% who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, the rate among women using MI would be between 2% and 8%; however this meta-analysis is based primarily on one study, which reported an unusually high miscarriage rate in the control group, and this has resulted in very high heterogeneity. When we removed this trial from the sensitivity analysis, we no longer saw the effect, and we noted no conclusive differences between MI and standard treatment.Low-quality evidence suggests that MI may be associated with little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rates when compared with standard treatment (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.71; P = 0.89; 2 RCTs; 425 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 18%, the rate among women using inositol would be between 12% and 27%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.85; P = 0.22; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 26%, the rate among women using MI would be between 24% and 40%. Ovulation rates were not reported for this comparison.Other comparisons included only one trial in each, so for the comparisons MI versus antioxidant, MI versus an insulin-sensitising agent, MI versus an ovulation induction agent, and MI versus another DCI, meta-analysis was not possible.No pooled evidence was available for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction, as only single trials performed comparison of the insulin-sensitising agent and the ovulation induction agent. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In light of available evidence of very low quality, we are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate in subfertile women with PCOS undergoing IVF pre-treatment taking MI compared to standard treatment. We are also uncertain whether MI decreases miscarriage rates or multiple pregnancy rates for these same women taking MI compared to standard treatment. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI versus placebo, another antioxidant, insulin-sensitising agents, ovulation induction agents, or another type of inositol for women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI in women undergoing ovulation induction.

Single embryo transfer for all?

Historically to maintain live birth rates for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF), multiple embryos were transferred. Improvements in technology have meant a move to selective single embryo transfer (SET). Do we now have enough confidence in SET to make it mandatory?

Interventions for endometriosis-related infertility: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of different treatments for women with endometriosis-related infertility. DESIGN: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Women with endometriosis confirmed by laparoscopy with associated infertility. INTERVENTION(S): An extensive electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Embase. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancy, live birth rate, miscarriage, and adverse events. RESULT(S): A total of 4,252 trials/abstracts were identified through the literature search, of which we included 36 trials in the systematic review and 26 trials reporting on 2,245 women with endometriosis-related infertility in the network meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo, surgical laparoscopy alone (odds ratio = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.35) or GnRH agonist alone (odds ratio = 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.46) results in higher odds of pregnancy. The evidence on the other interventions versus placebo or on the secondary outcomes including live birth, miscarriage, and adverse events is insufficient. CONCLUSION(S): The most important conclusion is that more RCTs are needed to clarify the relative effectiveness of treatments for endometriosis-related infertility, ideally comparing interventions to existing recommended interventions such as surgical laparoscopy. In addition, further RCTs comparing IVF and IUI to other treatments are essential. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO registration number, CRD42018087572.

Split-dose bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy performed under propofol sedation. Is there an optimal timing?

OBJECTIVE: Aspiration risk, especially with propofol sedation, remains a concern after split-dose bowel preparation of up to 1 L polyethylene glycol for the procedure. We aimed to identify the ideal timing of bowel preparation to achieve optimal colon cleansing with no increased risk of aspiration. METHODS: A total of 892 consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy were prospectively recruited. Residual gastric volume (RGV) and pH of gastric contents were measured at EGD, and patients' characteristics, runway time (duration between completion of the final liter of bowel preparation and colonoscopy commencement), and cleansing quality were recorded. RESULTS: A shorter runway time resulted in better colon cleansing (r = -0.124, P < 0.001). No correlation between runway time and RGV or pH was found (r = -0.017, P = 0.62 and r = -0.030, P = 0.47, respectively). RGV and pH did not differ significantly with runway time of 4 or 5 h. RGV with runway time ≤3 h was 35.9 ± 11.8 mL and 17.4 ± 0.6 mL after runway time >3 h (P < 0.001). No aspiration pneumonia occurred. The only factors independently related to higher RGV were younger age and male sex. CONCLUSIONS: The consumption of bowel preparation agent within 3-4 h before propofol sedation resulted in a similar RGV and pH as those achieved by more prolonged fasting, with no increased risk of aspiration even in patients perceived to be at high risk.

Haematochezia in Crohn's disease caused by late-onset haemobilia following percutaneous liver biopsy.

The case of a patient with Crohn's disease and who presented 4 days after a percutaneous liver biopsy with haematochezia suggestive of an exacerbation of his inflammatory bowel disease is described. Subsequent abdominal ultrasonography revealed free fluid in the peritoneal cavity and around the gallbladder. Haemobilia was suspected. Selective hepatic arteriography demonstrated a fistula between the hepatic artery and the portal venous system, with the presence of a hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm. Bleeding was stopped by arterial embolisation using titanium microcoils. Haemobilia is a very rare complication of percutaneous liver biopsy, but it should not be overlooked as a potential late-onset cause of rectal bleeding following this procedure. Selective hepatic arterial embolisation is an effective and safe treatment for this serious complication.