Long-term therapy with dienogest or other oral cyclic estrogen-progestogen can reduce the need for ovarian endometrioma surgery.

BACKGROUND: Almost 10% of women in reproductive age are diagnosed with ovarian endometriomas and can experience symptoms and infertility disorders. Ovarian endometriomas can be treated with medical or surgical therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether long-term therapy with dienogest or oral cyclic estrogen-progestogens is effective in reducing the size of ovarian endometriomas, alleviating associated symptoms, and reducing the requirement for surgery. DESIGN: Prospective non-interventional cohort study. METHODS: We enrolled childbearing women diagnosed with ovarian endometriomas. We collected demographic, clinical, and surgical data, including the evaluation of ovarian endometrioma-associated symptoms and pain using the visual analog scale. We grouped the women according to treatment regimen into dienogest, estrogen-progestogens, and no-treatment. Patient's assessment was performed at baseline and after 12 months evaluating the largest ovarian endometrioma diameter (in millimeters) and the associated symptoms. Furthermore, we analyzed the impact of hormonal treatment in a sub-group of women fulfilling at baseline the criteria for a first-line surgical approach (ovarian endometrioma > 30 mm with visual analog scale > 8 or ovarian endometrioma > 40 mm before assisted reproductive treatments or any ovarian endometrioma(s) > 60 mm). RESULTS: We enrolled 142 patients: 62, 38, and 42 in dienogest, estrogen-progestogens, and no-treatment groups, respectively. No significant differences were found regarding baseline characteristics. After 12 months, the mean largest ovarian endometrioma diameter increased in the no-treatment group (31.1 versus 33.8; p < 0.01), while a significant reduction was registered in the dienogest (35.1 versus 25.8; p < 0.01) and estrogen-progestogens (28.4 versus 16.7; p < 0.01) groups; no significant difference in ovarian endometrioma diameter reduction between these two latter groups was noted (p = 0.18). Ovarian endometrioma-associated symptoms and pain improved in dienogest and estrogen-progestogens groups, with a significantly greater effect for dienogest than for estrogen-progestogens for dysmenorrhea (74% versus 59%; p < 0.01). In the sub-group of women eligible for first-line surgery at baseline, long-term treatment with dienogest and estrogen-progestogens reduced surgical eligibility by 30%. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased mean largest ovarian endometriomas'diameter after 12 months and reduction of the need for surgical treatment by 30% were observed in dienogest and estrogen-progestogens groups. Long-term treatment with dienogest had a greater effect in alleviating dysmenorrhea and pain.

Nerve-Sparing Approach Improves Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Few studies have investigated the efficacy and safety of the nerve-sparing approach via minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of cervical cancer. We aimed to review the current evidence comparing nerve-sparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (NS-MRH) with conventional minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MRH). This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD#57655). Overall, 675 patients were included: 350 (51.9%) and 325 (48.1%) patients undergoing MRH and NS-MRH, respectively. MRH was associated with a shorter operative time in comparison with NS-MRH (mean difference = 32.57 minutes; 95% CI, 22.87-42.48). The estimated blood loss (mean difference = 97.14 mL, 20.01-214.29) and transfusion rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-3.01) did not differ statistically between the 2 groups. The risk of developing intraoperative (OR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.08-2.23) and severe postoperative (OR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.17-2.39) complications was similar between NS-MRH and MRH. Patients undergoing NS-MRH experienced lower voiding (OR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81) dysfunction rates than patients undergoing MRH. Moreover, a trend toward lower sexual (OR = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.06-1.07) and rectal (OR = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01-1.02) issues was observed for patients having NS-MRH compared with patients undergoing MRH. Survival outcomes are not influenced by the type of surgical approach (recurrence [OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.49-3.28] and death [OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.36-2.83]) rates. The pooled data suggested that NS-MRH is equivalent to MRH for the treatment of cervical cancer and may be superior in reducing pelvic floor dysfunction rates. However, because of the low level of evidence of the included studies, further randomized trials are warranted.