RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis has proven that metformin (M) is highly effective for ovulation induction in the clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant patient. There is uncertainty whether M should be introduced as a primary ovulation induction agent in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish if M is better when given alone or in combination with CC (CC+M) when compared with CC alone. This systematic review studied live birth delivery rate as the primary outcome. RESULTS: We identified 14 prospective trials. Analysis of these results showed a reduction in the live birth rate in the group of patients treated only with M when compared with CC alone (OR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.73, p = 0.0006). An increase in ovulation (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1, p = 0.0009) and pregnancy rate (OR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6, p = 0.05) with CC+M when compared with CC alone was reported, but no difference was found when live birth rate was analyzed (OR = 1.1, 95% CI 0.8-1.5, p = 0.61). CONCLUSION: CC alone is superior to M alone regarding live birth rate and ovulation. The combination (CC+M) is superior to CC alone as a primary method for ovulation induction and to achieve pregnancy in PCOS. However, when addressing live birth rate, no statistically significant difference could be demonstrated. Because of the side effects profile and contraindications of M, we believe M should not be indicated as a primary ovulation induction agent in women with PCOS.
Asunto(s)
Infertilidad Femenina/etiología , Metformina/uso terapéutico , Inducción de la Ovulación/métodos , Síndrome del Ovario Poliquístico/complicaciones , Clomifeno , Resistencia a Medicamentos , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Humanos , Infertilidad Femenina/tratamiento farmacológico , Nacimiento Vivo , Metformina/efectos adversos , Embarazo , Estudios Prospectivos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy of sterilization reversals by laparotomy versus laparoscopy. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches were carried out for randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective clinical studies. Search engines such as PubMed, Science Direct, Medline and the Cochrane database were made use of. Our restrictions were English human studies published from 1989 to January 2010. INTERVENTIONS: Microsurgical tubal reanastomosis performed comparing laparoscopy with laparotomy using a microsurgical technique. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: overall pregnancy rates, including positive clinical pregnancy, intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates. Secondary: surgery time. RESULTS: Three retrospective comparative studies were retrieved from international data that investigated laparotomy versus laparoscopy. A total number of 184 patients were included, 88 and 96 respectively undergoing laparoscopy and laparotomy. Pregnancy rates achieved by laparoscopy ranged from 65 to 80.5% (mean 74.43%) and by laparotomy from 70 to 80% (mean 71.33%). A subanalysis of two of the three comparative studies show that laparoscopy reversal surgery requires a statistically significant longer operative time than does laparotomy (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference between the laparoscopy and laparotomy approach to tubal reanastomosis when regarding overall pregnancy rates, intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates.