Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis. SEARCH METHODS: This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.

Impact of the outcome of fresh blastocyst transfer on the subsequent frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer cycle.

The objective of this observational study was to assess the influence of the outcome of fresh blastocyst transfer on the success rate of the subsequent sibling frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (FBT) cycle. In total, 1639 FBT cycles were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 698) cycles in which a positive pregnancy test result was achieved and Group B (n = 941) cycles in which no pregnancy was achieved in the preceding fresh IVF cycle. Mean age at cryopreservation, basal FSH level, number of oocytes retrieved, number of embryos transferred in the fresh cycle and survival rate of the thawed blastocysts in the FBT cycle were comparable between the two groups. Although significantly more thawed blastocysts were transferred in the FBT cycles in Group B compared with Group A, the live birth rate in Group A was significantly higher compared with Group B. After adjusting for potentially confounding variables, the likelihood of a live birth after FBT was significantly higher when a pregnancy was achieved in the preceding fresh IVF cycle. Achieving a pregnancy after fresh blastocyst transfer is an independent factor influencing the outcome of the subsequent sibling FBT.

Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) in In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) Treatment: Study Protocol for Pilot Phase of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Poor outcomes following IVF treatments are speculated to be due to the transfer of aneuploid embryos that cannot be identified based on morphological evaluation alone. This leads to patients requiring numerous embryo transfers and, consequently, a prolonged time interval before live birth. Embryo selection following preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) with next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been suggested as an intervention to shorten time to pregnancy in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Past studies assessing the clinical efficacy of PGT-A in improving clinical outcomes have been conflicting and the associated clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates following the transfer of a mosaic embryos have yet to be determined. None of the existing studies solely included women of advanced reproductive age (ARA). The pilot study and proposed RCT will determine if, compared to morphological evaluation alone, the use of PGT-A through NGS is a more clinically effective, safer, and more cost-effective way to provide IVF treatment in women of advanced reproductive age. Method and Analysis: The proposed pilot study will aim to randomise 100 patients within a single-centre study to evaluate recruitment, randomisation, and adherence to study protocol and allocated trail arms by participating patients. The results of the pilot study will enable us to determine the sample size for a larger study to establish the effectiveness of PGT-A in ARA women. Ethics and Dissemination: The study (Integrated Research Application System Number 236067) received approval from the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) and the East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee (20/EM/0290). The results will be made available to patients, the funders, the Reproductive Medicine societies, and other researchers. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05009745, n.

The Relationship between Number of Supernumerary Blastocysts Cryopreserved and Probability of a Live Birth Outcome after Single Fresh Blastocyst Transfer: Analysis of over 10 Thousand Cycles.

The ability to predict the likelihood of a live birth after single fresh embryo transfer is an important part of fertility treatment. While past studies have examined the likelihood of live birth based on the number of oocytes retrieved and cleavage-stage embryos available, the odds of a live birth based on the number of supernumerary blastocysts cryopreserved following a fresh embryo transfer has not been rigorously studied. We performed a retrospective analysis, stratified by age, on patients undergoing their first fresh autologous single day 5 blastocyst transfer to assess relationship between the likelihood of a live birth and number of supernumerary blastocysts cryopreserved. In patients aged <35 years and 35-39 years old, the likelihood of a live birth increased linearly between 1 and 6 supplementary blastocysts and non-linearly if 10 or more blastocysts were cryopreserved. When aged 40 years and above, the likelihood of a live birth increased linearly up to 4 cryopreserved blastocysts and then non-linearly if 10 or more blastocysts were cryopreserved. The present study demonstrated a non-linear relationship between the number of supernumerary blastocysts cryopreserved and the likelihood of a live birth after single blastocyst transfer in the first autologous fresh IVF/ICSI cycle across different age groups.

Effect of female body mass index on intrauterine insemination outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The prevalence of women with a raised body mass index (BMI) seeking assisted conception treatment is increasing. Findings of existing studies evaluating the effect of female BMI on intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment outcomes remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the effect of female BMI on IUI treatment outcomes. Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed study quality. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel approach for dichotomous outcomes. 11 studies involving 23,145 IUI treatment events, comprising 21,211 cycles from 8 studies, and 1,934 participants in three studies, met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Two cohorts of women undergoing IUI treatment were compared - women with normal BMI < 25 kg/m2 were compared with a second cohort of women with a BMI category ≥ 25 kg/m2. There was no statistically significant difference in live birth rate (LBR) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86-1.307); clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.13); miscarriage (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.31-2.74) or ectopic pregnancy rate (RR 2.20, 95% CI 0.78-6.23). Our meta-analysis showed that a raised female BMI did not affect IUI treatment outcomes. Nevertheless, weight loss counselling should be offered to women with a raised BMI undergoing IUI, to reduce the associated obstetric morbidity.

A meta-analysis of 11 studies found that having a raised female BMI did not change IUI treatment outcomes.

Outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male infertility: a systematic review.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the primary outcomes and outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating potential treatments for male infertility in the last 10 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: Outcome reporting across male infertility trials is heterogeneous with numerous definitions and measures used to define similar outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: No core outcome set for male infertility trials has been developed. Male infertility trials are unique in that they have potentially three participants, a man, a female partner and their offspring and this will likely lead to significant variation in outcome reporting in randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A systematic review of RCTs mapping outcomes and outcome measures evaluating potential treatments for men with infertility registered in the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 2010 and July 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Abstract screening and study selection was undertaken in duplicate using a review protocol that was developed prior to commencing the review. No risk of bias assessment was undertaken as this review aims to report on outcome reporting only. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: One hundred and seventy-five RCTs were identified, and given the large number of studies we limited our review to the 100 largest trials. Seventy-nine different treatments were reported across the 100 largest RCTs including vitamin and dietary supplements (18 trials), surgical treatments (18 trials) and sperm selection techniques (22 trials). When considering the largest 100 trials (range: 80-2772 participants), 36 primary and 89 secondary outcomes were reported. Forty-seven trials reported a primary outcome and 36 trials clearly defined their primary outcome. Pregnancy outcomes were inconsistently reported and included pregnancy rate (51 trials), pregnancy loss including miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth (9 trials) and live birth (13 trials). Trials consistently reporting the same outcome frequently used different definitions. For example, semen quality was reported by 75 trials and was defined in 7 different ways, including; the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 criteria (32 trials), WHO 1999 criteria (18 trials), WHO 1992 criteria (3 trials), WHO 1999 and 1992 criteria (1 trial) and the Kruger strict morphology criteria (1 trial). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only evaluated the 100 largest trials published in the last 10 years and did not report outcomes on the remaining 75. An outcome was included as a primary outcome only if clearly stated in the manuscript and we did not contact authors to clarify this. As our review mapped outcomes and outcome measures, we did not undertake an integrity assessment of the trials included in our review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Most randomized trials evaluating treatments for male infertility report different outcomes. Only half of the RCTs reported pregnancy rate and even fewer reported live birth; furthermore, the definitions of these outcomes varies across trials. Developing, disseminating and implementing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for male infertility research could help to improve outcome selection, collection and reporting. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: A.P.-chairman of external scientific advisory committee of Cryos International Denmark ApS, member of the scientific advisory board for Cytoswim LDT and ExSeed Health. Guest lecture at the 'Insights for Fertility Conference', funded by MERK SERONO Limited. M.v.W.-holds a ZON-MW research grant. No external funding was obtained for this study.

Protocol for developing a core outcome set for male infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: We aim to develop, disseminate and implement a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future male infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Research into male infertility can be challenging to design, conduct and report. Evidence from randomized trials can be difficult to interpret and of limited ability to inform clinical practice for numerous reasons. These may include complex issues, such as variation in outcome measures and outcome reporting bias, as well as failure to consider the perspectives of men and their partners with lived experience of fertility problems. Previously, the Core Outcome Measure for Infertility Trials (COMMIT) initiative, an international consortium of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with fertility problems, has developed a core outcome set for general infertility research. Now, a bespoke core outcome set for male infertility is required to address the unique challenges pertinent to male infertility research. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, scientists, researchers and people with fertility problems, will be invited to participate. Formal consensus science methods will be used, including the modified Delphi method, modified Nominal Group Technique and the National Institutes of Health's consensus development conference. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: An international steering group, including the relevant stakeholders outlined above, has been established to guide the development of this core outcome set. Possible core outcomes will be identified by undertaking a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male factor infertility. These outcomes will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Repeated reflection and re-scoring should promote convergence towards consensus outcomes, which will be prioritized during a consensus development meeting to identify a final core outcome set. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work has been supported by the Urology Foundation small project award, 2021. C.L.R.B. is the recipient of a BMGF grant and received consultancy fees from Exscentia and Exceed sperm testing, paid to the University of Dundee and speaking fees or honoraria paid personally by Ferring, Copper Surgical and RBMO. S.B. received royalties from Cambridge University Press, Speaker honoraria for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore, Merk SMART Masterclass and Merk FERRING Forum, paid to the University of Aberdeen. Payment for leadership roles within NHS Grampian, previously paid to self, now paid to University of Aberdeen. An Honorarium is received as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. M.L.E. is an advisor to the companies Hannah and Ro. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from the NHMRC, No: GNT1176437 is a paid consultant for ObsEva and has received research funding from Ferring and Merck. R.R.H. received royalties from Elsevier for a book, consultancy fees from Glyciome, and presentation fees from GryNumber Health and Aytu Bioscience. Aytu Bioscience also funded MiOXYS systems and sensors. Attendance at Fertility 2020 and Roadshow South Africa by Ralf Henkel was funded by LogixX Pharma Ltd. R.R.H. is also Editor in Chief of Andrologia and has been an employee of LogixX Pharma Ltd. since 2020. M.S.K. is an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. K.Mc.E. received an honoraria for lectures from Bayer and Pharmasure in 2019 and payment for an ESHRE grant review in 2019. His attendance at ESHRE 2019 and AUA 2019 was sponsored by Pharmasure and Bayer, respectively. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative registration No: 1586. Available at www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1586. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: N/A. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: N/A.

Risk of breast cancer in women treated with ovarian stimulation drugs for infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence addressing the association between the use of ovarian stimulation drugs and the risk of breast cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Women without any previous history of breast cancer undergoing ovarian stimulation. INTERVENTION(S): Electronic databases were searched from 1990 until January 2020. All cohort studies reporting new incidences of breast cancer in infertile women using ovarian stimulating drugs were included. Treated (exposed) infertile women were compared with the unexposed general population with unexposed infertile women as controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): New diagnosis of breast cancer within an infertile and general population after exposure to ovarian stimulation drugs. RESULT(S): Overall, the quality of evidence was very low because of the serious risk of bias and indirectness (nonrandomized studies). There was no significant increase in the risk of breast cancer among women treated with any ovarian stimulation drug for infertility compared with that in unexposed controls from the general population and the infertile population (pooled odds ratio 1.03, 95% Confidence interval 0.86 to 1.23, 20 studies, I2 = 88.41%, very low quality of evidence). Furthermore, no significant increase in the risk of breast cancer was found with the use of clomiphene citrate or gonadotropins, alone or in combination. CONCLUSION(S): The current study found that the use of clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins in infertile women was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

Spontaneous rupture of uterine leiomyoma during labour.

Uterine rupture in labour requires an emergency caesarean section. In women with a uterine scar, either from gynaecological surgery or from a previous caesarean section, it is well documented that the risk of rupture is higher than in those without. Spontaneous uterine rupture in a uterus with fibroids during pregnancy or labour is extremely rare. We present a case of a 33-year-old, unbooked pregnant woman from Nigeria who had a uterine rupture secondary to fibroids. She required an emergency caesarean section in labour. The fibroids were not removed. Her baby was born alive and in good condition and she made an uneventful recovery.

Heavy menstrual flow: current and future trends in management.

Menorrhagia accounts for a large number of secondary care referrals in the West. Women of different ages have different expectations from the treatment offered to them. Young women of reproductive age often demand treatment that simultaneously reduces bleeding, preserves fertility, and has very few side effects, whereas older women who ultimately wish to keep their reproductive organs may have reason to avoid hormonal manipulation. This article discusses possible management options and introduces a hierarchical approach to the management of menorrhagia based on the medical therapies and surgical procedures currently available. We explore the medical therapies for menorrhagia, which include hormone-modifying drug therapies and the new combined oral contraceptive pill. We also review novel fibroid surgical therapies and the latest surgical procedures, such as laparoscopic bilateral uterine artery occlusion, transvaginal Doppler-guided vascular clamp, and laparoscopic and intrauterine ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation.