Growth hormone for in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve outcomes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles, the use of growth hormone (GH) has been considered as adjuvant treatment in ovarian stimulation. Improving the outcomes of IVF is especially important for women with infertility who are considered 'poor responders'. We have compared the outcomes of IVF with adjuvant GH versus no adjuvant treatment in routine use, and specifically in poor responders. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of growth hormone as an adjunct to IVF compared to standard IVF for women with infertility SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (to November 2020): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database and trial registers together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant GH treatment in IVF compared with no adjuvant treatment for women with infertility. We excluded trials where additional adjuvant treatments were used with GH. We also excluded trials comparing different IVF protocols. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, oocytes retrieved, embryo transfer, units of gonadotropin used and adverse events, i.e. ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), congenital anomalies, oedema. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs (1352 women). Two RCTs (80 women) studied GH in routine use, and 14 RCTs (1272 women) studied GH in poor responders. The evidence was low to very low certainty, the main limitations being risk of bias, imprecision and heterogeneity. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: routine use for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for routine use in IVF (odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.43; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 6% and 43%. There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding clinical pregnancy rates per woman randomised, number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved per woman randomised and embryo transfer achieved per woman randomised; reported data were unsuitable for analysis. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders (mean difference (MD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.74; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean units of gonadotropin used in normal responders (MD 13.57, 95% CI -112.88 to 140.01; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in normal responders. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: use in poor responders for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for poor responders (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.70; I2 = 0%; 8 trials, 737 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 11%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 13% and 25%. Adjuvant GH results in a slight increase in pregnancy rates in poor responders (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.53; I2 = 15%; 11 trials, 1033 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results suggest, if the pregnancy rate without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, with GH the pregnancy rate in poor responders would be between 19% and 31%. The evidence suggests that GH results in little to no difference in number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved (OR 5.67, 95% CI 1.54 to 20.83; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). If the chance of retrieving at least one oocyte in poor responders was 81%, with GH the chance is between 87% and 99%. There is a slight increase in mean number of oocytes retrieved with the use of GH for poor responders (MD 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.64; I2 = 87%; 12 trials, 1153 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on embryo transfer achieved (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.96; I2 = 25%; 4 trials, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of achieving embryo transfer is assumed to be 77%, the chance with GH will be 78% to 94%. Use of GH results in reduction of mean units of gonadotropins used for stimulation in poor responders (MD -1088.19, 95% CI -1203.20 to -973.18; I2 = 91%; 8 trials, 685 participants; low-certainty evidence). High heterogeneity in the analyses for mean number of oocytes retrieved and units of GH used suggests quite different effects according to differences including in trial protocols (populations, GH dose and schedule), so these results should be interpreted with caution. We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in poor responders as six of the 14 included trials failed to report this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjuvant GH in IVF treatment protocols has uncertain effect on live birth rates and mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders. However, it slightly increases the number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy rates in poor responders, while there is an uncertain effect on live birth rates in this group. The results however, need to be interpreted with caution, as the included trials were small and few in number, with significant bias and imprecision. Also, the dose and regimen of GH used in trials was variable. Therefore, further research is necessary to fully define the role of GH as adjuvant therapy in IVF.

Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with comorbidities, including pelvic pain, subfertility, and small bowel obstruction. Adhesions also increase the likelihood of further surgery, causing distress and unnecessary expenses. Strategies to prevent adhesion formation include the use of fluid (also called hydroflotation) and gel agents, which aim to prevent healing tissues from touching one another, or drugs, aimed to change an aspect of the healing process, to make adhesions less likely to form. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluid and pharmacological agents on rates of pain, live births, and adhesion prevention in women undergoing gynaecological surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos to 22 August 2019. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid (including gel) and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes of interest were pelvic pain; live birth rates; incidence of, mean, and changes in adhesion scores at second look-laparoscopy (SLL); clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates; quality of life at SLL; and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 trials (3492 women), and excluded 11. We were unable to include data from nine studies in the statistical analyses, but the findings of these studies were broadly in keeping with the findings of the meta-analyses. Hydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (10 RCTs) We are uncertain whether hydroflotation agents affected pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.09; one study, 226 women; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected live birth rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58; two studies, 208 women; low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Hydroflotation agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, four studies, 566 women; high-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in 54% to 75% having adhesions. Hydroflotation agents probably made little or no difference to mean adhesion score at SLL (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.09; four studies, 722 women; moderate-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; three studies, 310 women; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This suggests that in women with a 26% chance of clinical pregnancy with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in a clinical pregnancy rate of 11% to 28%. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus no treatment (12 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain or live birth rate. Gel agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL compared with no treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; five studies, 147 women; high-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, the use of gel agents would result in 39% to 75% having adhesions. It is unclear whether gel agents affected mean adhesion scores at SLL (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09; four studies, 159 women; moderate-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.02; one study, 30 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents when used as an instillant (3 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. Gel agents probably reduce the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.83; three studies, 538 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 46% chance of having adhesions at SLL with a hydroflotation agent, the use of gel agents would result in 21% to 41% having adhesions. We are uncertain whether gel agents improved mean adhesion scores at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.76; one study, 77 women; very low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (4 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, incidence of adhesions at SLL or mean adhesion score at SLL. It is unclear whether steroids affected live birth rates compared with no steroids (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.62; two studies, 223 women; low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; three studies, 410 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but we found no evidence indicating that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. It is also worth noting that for some comparisons, wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect meant that clinical harm as a result of interventions could not be excluded. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society score. Statistical findings should be reported in full. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to intervention.

Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic adhesions can form secondary to inflammation, endometriosis, or surgical trauma. Strategies to reduce pelvic adhesion formation include placing barrier agents such as oxidised regenerated cellulose, polytetrafluoroethylene, and fibrin or collagen sheets between pelvic structures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of barrier agents used during pelvic surgery on rates of pain, live birth, and postoperative adhesions in women of reproductive age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in August 2019: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Epistemonikos, and trial registries. We searched reference lists of relevant papers, conference proceedings, and grey literature sources. We contacted pharmaceutical companies for information and handsearched relevant journals and conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of barrier agents compared with other barrier agents, placebo, or no treatment for prevention of adhesions in women undergoing gynaecological surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed-effect model. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (1316 women). Seven RCTs randomised women; the remainder randomised pelvic organs. Laparoscopy (eight RCTs) and laparotomy (11 RCTs) were the primary surgical techniques. Indications for surgery included myomectomy (seven RCTs), ovarian surgery (five RCTs), pelvic adhesions (five RCTs), endometriosis (one RCT), and mixed gynaecological surgery (one RCT). The sole indication for surgery in three of the RCTs was infertility. Thirteen RCTs reported commercial funding; the rest did not state their source of funding. No studies reported our primary outcomes of pelvic pain and live birth rate. Oxidised regenerated cellulose versus no treatment at laparoscopy or laparotomy (13 RCTs) At second-look laparoscopy, we are uncertain whether oxidised regenerated cellulose at laparoscopy reduced the incidence of de novo adhesions (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, 3 RCTs, 360 participants; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence) or of re-formed adhesions (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, 100 participants; I² = 36%; very low-quality evidence). At second-look laparoscopy, we are uncertain whether oxidised regenerated cellulose affected the incidence of de novo adhesions after laparotomy (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25, 1 RCT, 271 participants; very low-quality evidence). However, the incidence of re-formed adhesions may have been reduced in the intervention group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55, 6 RCTs, 554 participants; I² = 41%; low-quality evidence). No studies reported results on pelvic pain, live birth rate, adhesion score, or clinical pregnancy rate. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene versus oxidised regenerated cellulose at gynaecological surgery (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether expanded polytetrafluoroethylene reduced the incidence of de novo adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.41, 38 participants; very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain whether expanded polytetrafluoroethylene resulted in a lower adhesion score (out of 11) (MD -3.79, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.46, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence) or a lower risk of re-formed adhesions (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.80, 23 participants; very low-quality evidence) when compared with oxidised regenerated cellulose. No studies reported results regarding pelvic pain, live birth rate, or clinical pregnancy rate. Collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol and glycerol versus no treatment at gynaecological surgery (one RCT) Evidence suggests that collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol and glycerol may reduce the incidence of adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.77, 47 participants; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol and glycerol improved clinical pregnancy rate (OR 5.69, 95% CI 1.38 to 23.48, 39 participants; very low-quality evidence). One study reported adhesion scores but reported them as median scores rather than mean scores (median score 0.8 in the treatment group vs median score 1.2 in the control group) and therefore could not be included in the meta-analysis. The reported P value was 0.230, and no evidence suggests a difference between treatment and control groups. No studies reported results regarding pelvic pain or live birth rate. In total, 15 of the 19 RCTs included in this review reported adverse events. No events directly attributed to adhesion agents were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence on the effects of barrier agents used during pelvic surgery on pelvic pain or live birth rate in women of reproductive age because no trial reported these outcomes. It is difficult to draw credible conclusions due to lack of evidence and the low quality of included studies. Given this caveat, low-quality evidence suggests that collagen membrane with polyethylene glycol plus glycerol may be more effective than no treatment in reducing the incidence of adhesion formation following pelvic surgery. Low-quality evidence also shows that oxidised regenerated cellulose may reduce the incidence of re-formation of adhesions when compared with no treatment at laparotomy. It is not possible to draw conclusions on the relative effectiveness of these interventions due to lack of evidence. No adverse events directly attributed to the adhesion agents were reported. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Common limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Most studies were commercially funded, and publication bias could not be ruled out.

Laparoscopic entry techniques.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.

Pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopy is increasingly performed in an outpatient setting. Pain is the primary reason for abandonment of procedure or incomplete assessment. There is no consensus upon routine use of analgesia during hysteroscopy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for pain relief in women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy, compared with placebo, no treatment or other pharmacological therapies. SEARCH METHODS: In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP), together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of pharmacological interventions with other pharmacological interventions and pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was mean pain score. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTS (3304 participants), of which only 19 reported data suitable for analysis. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in most of the domains assessed. The evidence was low or very low quality, mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. Baseline pain scores were relatively low in all groups. Analgesic versus placebo or no treatment Local anaesthetics Local anaesthetics reduced mean pain scores during the procedure [(SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.19, 10 RCTs, 1496 women, I2 = 80%, low-quality evidence)] and within 30 minutes (SMD 0.50, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.33, 5 RCTs, 545 women, I2 = 43%, low-quality evidence). This translates to a difference of up to 7 mm on a 0-10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) during the procedure and up to 13 mm within 30 minutes, which is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in mean pain scores after > 30 minutes (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07, 4 RCTs, 450 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence), or in rates of vasovagal reactions (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13, 8 RCTs, 1309 women, I2 = 66%, very low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of non-pelvic pain (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 5.80, 1 RCT, 99 women, very low-quality evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in mean pain scores during the procedure (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.00, 3 RCTs, 521 women, I2 = 81%, low-quality evidence). Pain scores were lower in the NSAIDs group within 30 minutes (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.04, 2 RCTs, 340 women, I2=29%, low-quality evidence) and at over 30 minutes (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.05, 2 RCTs, 321 women, I2 = 78%, low-quality evidence). This equates to maximum differences of under 7.5 mm on a 0-10 cm scale, which are unlikely to be clinically significant. One RCT (181 women) reported adverse events: there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in vasovagal reactions (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.94, very low-quality evidence). For other reported adverse events (non pelvic pain and allergic reactions) evidence was lacking. Opioids One RCT utilised sublingual buprenorphine and one utilised oral tramadol. Data on pain scores during the procedure were unsuitable for pooling due to inconsistency. Tramadol was associated with a benefit of up to 22 mm on a 0-10 cm scale (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 140 women). However, the effect estimate for this outcome for sublingual opioids did not support a benefit from the intervention (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.39, 164 women). Compared with placebo, the pain score within 30 minutes of the procedure was reduced in the tramadol group, with a difference of up to 17mm on a 0-10cm scale (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.23 , 1 RCT, 140 women, low-quality evidence. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the tramadol and placebo groups at over 30 minutes (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.16, 1 RCT, 140 women, low-quality evidence). Nausea and vomiting occurred in 39% of the buprenorphine group, and in none of the placebo group (OR 107.55, 95% CI 6.44 to 1796.46) Analgesic versus any other analgesic Some comparisons did not report pain scores at all time frames of interest, and none reported data on adverse events. One RCT (84 women) compared local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical and paracervical anaesthesia. Pain scores were higher in the group with local intracervical anaesthesia during the procedure (SMD 4.27, 95% CI 3.49 to 5.06, very low-quality evidence), within 30 minutes (SMD 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.05, very low-quality evidence) and at more than 30 minutes (SMD 3.47, 95% CI 2.78 to 4.15, very low-quality evidence). This translates to a possible benefit in the combined group of up to 12 mm on a 0-10 cm scale during the procedure. Benefits at longer follow-up were smaller. One RCT compared antispasmodic + NSAID versus local paracervical anaesthesia. Pain scores were lower in the NSAID group than in the local anaesthesia group (during procedure: SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.90 to -0.91; >30 minutes after procedure: SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.41; 80 women, very low-quality evidence). This suggests a possible benefit of during the procedure of up to 23 mm on a 0-10 VAS scale and up to 11 mm >30 minutes after the procedure. Other comparisons included local intracervical anaesthesia versus combined intracervical, paracervical and topical anaesthesia, and opioid versus NSAIDs. Findings were inconclusive. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no consistent good-quality evidence of a clinically meaningful difference in safety or effectiveness between different types of pain relief compared with each other or with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy.

Pain relief in hysterosalpingography.

BACKGROUND: Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is a method of testing for tubal patency. However, women struggle to tolerate the procedure, as it is associated with some discomfort. Various pharmacological strategies are available that may reduce pain during the procedure, though there is no consensus as to the best method. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of different types of pharmacological interventions for pain relief in women undergoing HSG for investigation of subfertility. SEARCH METHODS: This review has drawn on the search strategy developed for the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG). We searched the following databases to 15 April 2015: MDSG Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified randomised controlled trials investigating pharmacological interventions for pain relief during HSG were investigated for selection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently extracted data. We combined data to calculate mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 23 trials (1272 women) that were eligible for inclusion into the study. Oral opioid analgesia versus placebo/no treatmentThere was no evidence of effect for oral opioid analgesia in reducing pain during the procedure (MD -0.91, 95% CI -1.88 to 0.06, 1 study, n = 128, low quality evidence) or more than 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -0.99, 95% CI -1.75 to -0.23, 1 study, n = 128, moderate quality evidence)No studies reported on the effect of oral opioid analgesia, when taken prior to the procedure, in reducing pain within 30 minutes after the procedureThere was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions regarding adverse effects. Intravenous opioid analgesia versus placebo/no treatmentThere was evidence that intravenous opioids may improve pain relief during the procedure compared to no treatment (MD -3.53, 95% CI -4.29 to -2.77, 1 study, n = 62, moderate quality evidence)No studies reported on the effect of intravenous opioid analgesia, when taken prior to the procedure, in reducing pain within 30 minutes and more than 30 minutes after the procedureIn terms of adverse effects, one trial reported 1/32 participants had apnoea with intravenous remifentanil. Recovery time was nearly 4 minutes longer in the remifentanil group compared to the control. Oral non-opioid analgesia versus placebo/no treatmentThere was no evidence of effect for oral non-opioid analgesia in reducing pain during the procedure (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.23, 3 studies, n = 133, I² = 61%, low quality evidence), less than 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.43, 2 studies, n = 45, I² = 97%, very low quality evidence), or more than 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -0.36, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.34, 3 studies, n = 133, I² = 58%, low quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions regarding adverse effects. Topical anaesthesia versus placebo/no treatmentThere was evidence that topical anaesthetics may reduce pain during the procedure (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.19, 9 studies, n = 613, I² = 66%, low quality evidence).There was no evidence of effect for topical anaesthesia, when applied prior to the procedure, in reducing pain less than 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.42, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.86, 5 studies, n = 373, I² = 59%, very low quality evidence).There was evidence of effect for topical anaesthesia, when applied prior to the procedure, in reducing pain more than 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.38, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.68, 2 studies, n = 166, I² = 92%, very low quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions regarding adverse effects. Locally injected anaesthesia versus placebo/no treatmentThere was evidence of effect that locally injected anaesthetic can reduce pain during the procedure (MD -1.31, 95% CI -1.55 to -1.07, 2 studies, n = 125, I² = 0%, very low quality evidence).There was no evidence of effect for locally injected anaesthesia, when applied prior to the procedure, in reducing pain less than 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.31, 95% CI -2.14 to -0.49, 2 studies, n = 125, I² = 46%, low quality evidence).No studies were included into the analysis of the effect of locally injected anaesthesia, when injected prior to the procedure, in reducing pain more than 30 minutes after the procedure.There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions regarding adverse effects. Any analgesic versus any other analgesicThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups when oral non-opioid analgesia was compared to opioid analgesia for pain relief during the procedure (MD 1.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 2.46, 1 study, n = 91, low quality evidence); less than 30 minutes following the procedure (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.40, 1 study, n = 91, low quality evidence); and more than 30 minutes following the procedure (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.56 to 0.36, 1 study, n = 91, low quality evidence). Topical anaesthetics were found to be more effective than paracervical block for pain relief during HSG (MD -2.73, 95% CI -3.86 to -1.60, 1 study, n = 20, moderate quality evidence). This benefit did not extend to within 30 minutes following HSG (MD -1.03, 95% CI -2.52 to 0.46, 1 study, n = 20, low quality evidence); or 30 minutes or more after HSG (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.87 to 1.49, 1 study, n = 20, low quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions regarding adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical anaesthetic applied before the procedure may be associated with effective pain relief during HSG, though the quality of this evidence is low. Intravenous opioids may also be effective in pain relief, though this must be weighed against their side effects and their effects on the recovery time. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the efficacy of other analgesics for HSG, or to reach any other conclusions regarding adverse effects.

Laparoscopic entry techniques.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialities. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera e.g. the bowel or bladder, or to vasculature e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels. Minor complications can also occur, such as postoperative wound infection, subcutaneous emphysema, and extraperitoneal insufflation. There is no clear consensus as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery. SEARCH METHODS: This updated review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. In addition, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO were searched through to September 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which one laparoscopic entry technique was compared with another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 46 RCTs including three multi-arm trials (7389 participants) and evaluated 13 laparoscopic entry techniques. Overall there was no evidence of advantage using any single technique for preventing major vascular or visceral complications. The evidence was generally of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Open-entry versus closed-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). There was a lower risk of failed entry in the open-entry group (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63, n = 665, two RCTs, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 31 patients in the closed-entry group will have failed entry compared to between 1 to 20 patients in the open-entry group. No events were reported in any of the studies for mortality, gas embolism or solid organ injury. Direct trocar versus Veress needle entry There was a lower risk of vascular injury in the direct trocar group (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.66, five RCTs, n = 1522, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence) and failed entry (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30, seven RCTs, n = 3104; I ²= 0%; moderate quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 8 patients in the Veress needle group will experience vascular injury compared to between 0 to 5 patients in the direct trocar group; and that 64 patients in the Veress needle group will experience failed entry compared to between 10 to 20 patients in the direct trocar group. The vascular injury significance is sensitive to choice of statistical analysis and may be unreliable. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for visceral (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.24, four RCTs, n = 1438, I(2) = 49%; very low quality evidence) or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.16, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.53, two RCTs, n = 998, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence). No events were recorded for mortality or gas embolism. Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34, one RCT, n = 194; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Direct vision entry versus open-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50, two RCTs, n = 392; low quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67, one RCT, n = 60, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09, one RCT, n = 60; low quality evidence). Vascular injury was reported, however no events occurred. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocars There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = n/a; low quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91, one RCT, n = 244; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Comparisons of other laparoscopic entry techniquesThere was a higher risk of failed entry in the group in which the abdominal wall was lifted before Veress needle insertion than in the not-lifted group (Peto OR 4.44, 95% CI 2.16 to 9.13, one RCT, n = 150; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of visceral injury or extraperitoneal insufflation. The studies had small numbers and excluded many patients with previous abdominal surgery, and women with a raised body mass index. These patients may have unusually high complication rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one laparoscopic entry technique over another.An open-entry technique is associated with a reduction in failed entry when compared to a closed-entry technique, with no evidence of a difference in the incidence of visceral or vascular injury.An advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry was noted for failed entry and vascular injury. The evidence was generally of very low quality with small numbers of participants in most studies; our findings should be interpreted with caution.

Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic adhesions can form as a result of inflammation, endometriosis or surgical trauma. During pelvic surgery, strategies to reduce pelvic adhesion formation include placing barrier agents such as oxidised regenerated cellulose, polytetrafluoroethylene or fibrin sheets between the pelvic structures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of barrier agents used during pelvic surgery on rates of pain, live birth and postoperative adhesions in women of reproductive age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in February 2015: the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and trial registries. We handsearched relevant journals, conference proceedings and grey literature sources and we contacted pharmaceutical companies for information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of barrier agents compared with other barrier agents, placebo or no treatment for the prevention of adhesions in women undergoing gynaecological surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed effect model. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs (1262 women) were included. Six RCTs randomised women; the remainder randomised pelvic organs. Laparoscopy (eight RCTs) and laparotomy (10 RCTs) were the primary surgical techniques. Indications for surgery included myomectomy (six RCTs), ovarian surgery (five RCTs), pelvic adhesions (five RCTs), endometriosis (one RCT) and mixed (one RCT). The sole indication for surgery in three of the RCTs was infertility. Twelve RCTs reported commercial funding; the rest did not state their source of funding.No studies reported either of our primary outcomes of pelvic pain and live birth. Oxidised regenerated cellulose (Interceed) versus no treatment at laparoscopy or laparotomy (13 RCTs)At second-look laparoscopy oxidised regenerated cellulose at laparoscopy was associated with reduced incidence of de novo adhesions (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, three RCTs, 360 participants, I(2) = 75%, very low-quality evidence) and of re-formed adhesions (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, three RCTs, 100 participants, I(2) = 36%, low quality evidence).At second-look laparoscopy no evidence was found of any difference between the groups in the incidence of de novo adhesions after laparotomy (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25, one RCT, 271 participants, I(2) = 41%, low-quality evidence). However, the incidence of re-formed adhesions was lower in the intervention group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55, six RCTs, 554 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) versus no treatment at gynaecological surgery (one RCT) The evidence suggested that at second-look laparoscopy expanded polytetrafluoroethylene was associated with a reduction in new adhesion formation (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.94, one RCT, 42 participants, low-quality evidence). Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) versus oxidised regenerated cellulose (Interceed) at gynaecological surgery (two RCTs)One RCT found no difference between the groups at second-look laparoscopy in the incidence of de novo adhesions (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.41, 38 participants, very low-quality evidence). A second RCT suggested that the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene group had a lower adhesion score (out of 11) (MD -3.79, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.46, 62 participants, very low-quality evidence) and a lower risk of re-formed adhesions (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.80, 23 participants, very low-quality evidence). This last finding was sensitive to choice of effect estimate and no longer suggested a difference between the groups when a risk ratio was calculated (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.01). Sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose (Seprafilm) versus no treatment at gynaecological surgery (one RCT)Sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose was associated with a lower adhesion score (out of 4) at second-look laparoscopy (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.45, one RCT, 127 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Fibrin sheet versus no treatment at laparoscopic myomectomy (one RCT)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the incidence of de novo adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.41, one RCT, 62 participants) or in adhesion score (out of 4) (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.39, one RCT, 48 participants, low-quality evidence).Fourteen of the 18 RCTs reported adverse events. No events directly attributed to adhesion agents were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence on the effects of barrier agents used during pelvic surgery on either pain or fertility outcomes in women of reproductive age.Low quality evidence suggests that oxidised regenerated cellulose (Interceed), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) and sodium hyaluronate with carboxymethylcellulose (Seprafilm) may all be more effective than no treatment in reducing the incidence of adhesion formation following pelvic surgery. There is no conclusive evidence on the relative effectiveness of these interventions. There is no evidence to suggest that fibrin sheet is more effective than no treatment. No adverse events directly attributed to the adhesion agents were reported. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The most common limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Most studies were commercially funded, and publication bias could not be ruled out.

Adhesion prevention agents for gynaecological surgery: an overview of Cochrane reviews.

BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal adhesions are associated with considerable co-morbidity and have large financial and public health repercussions. They have secondary effects that include chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, subfertility and bowel obstruction. In women with adhesions, subsequent surgery is more difficult, often takes longer, and is associated with a higher complication rate (Broek 2013). The significant burden of adhesions has led to the development of several anti-adhesion agents, although there is disagreement as to their relative effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To summarise evidence derived from Cochrane systematic reviews on the clinical safety and effectiveness of solid agents, gel agents, liquid agents and pharmacological agents, used as adjuvants to prevent formation of adhesions after gynaecological pelvic surgery. METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched using the keyword 'adhesion' up to August 2014. The Cochrane information management system was also searched for any titles or protocols of reviews in progress. Two review authors independently extracted information from the reviews, with disagreements being resolved by a third review author. The quality of the included reviews was described in a narrative manner, and the AMSTAR tool was used to formally assess each review included in this overview. The quality of evidence provided in the original reviews was described using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included two reviews, one with 18 studies comparing solid agents (oxidised regenerated cellulose expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose, and fibrin sheets) with control or with each other. The other review included 29 studies which compared liquid agents (4% icodextrin, 32% dextran, crystalloids), gel agents (carboxymethylcellulose and polyethylene oxide, polyethylene glycol gels, hyaluronic acid based gel, 0.5% ferric hyaluronate gel, sodium hyaluronate spray) and pharmacological agents (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, reteplase plasminogen activator, N,O-carboxymethyl chitosan, steroid agents, intraperitoneal noxytioline, intraperitoneal heparin, systemic promethazine) with control or each other. Both reviews met all of the criteria of the AMSTAR assessment.The reviews included as outcomes both the primary outcomes of this overview (pelvic pain, pregnancy, live birth rate and quality of life (QoL)) and our secondary outcomes (adverse effects, presence or absence of adhesions at second-look laparoscopy (SLL) and adhesion score). However, neither of the reviews identified any primary studies of solid, gel or pharmacological agents that reported any of our primary outcomes. The only studies in either review that reported any of our primary outcomes were studies comparing liquid agents versus control (saline or Hartmann's solution), which reported pelvic pain (two studies), live birth (two studies) and pregnancy (three studies).An external source of funding was stated for 25 of the 47 studies across both reviews; in 24 of these studies the funding was commercial. Solid agents (18 studies)None of our primary outcomes were reported. Adverse events were reported as an outcome by only 9 of the 18 studies. These reported no adverse events. Liquid agents (nine studies)There was no evidence of a difference between liquid agents and control (saline or Hartmann's solution) with respect to pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.14, 1 study, n = 286, moderate quality evidence), pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14, 3 studies, n = 310, moderate quality evidence) or live birth rate (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58, 2 studies, n = 208, moderate quality evidence). No studies of liquid agents reported QoL. Adverse events were not reported as an outcome by any of the nine studies. Gel agents (seven studies)None of our primary outcomes were reported. Adverse events were not reported as an outcome by any of the seven studies. Pharmacological agents (seven studies)None of our primary outcomes were reported. Adverse events were reported as an outcome by only one of the seven primary studies. This study reported no evidence of difference in ectopic pregnancy rates between intraperitoneal noxytioline and no treatment (OR 4.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 53.27, 1 study, n = 33, low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to allow us to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of anti-adhesion agents in gynaecological surgery, due to the lack of data on pelvic pain, fertility outcomes, quality of life or safety. A substantial proportion of research in this field has been funded by private companies that manufacture these agents, and further high powered, independent trials will be needed before definitive conclusions can be made.

Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by various conditions including pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with considerable co-morbidity, including pelvic pain, subfertility and small bowel obstruction. Patients may require further surgery-a fact that has financial implications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of fluid and pharmacological agents used as adjuvants in preventing formation of adhesions after gynaecological surgery. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched up to April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO. Studies involving hydroflotation, gel and such pharmacological agents as steroids, noxytioline, heparin, promethazine, N,O-carboxymethyl chitosan and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists were evaluated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery. Gels were defined as fluid agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or standard mean differences (SMDs) as appropriate, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials were included (3227 participants), and nine were excluded. One study examined pelvic pain and found no evidence of a difference between use of hydroflotation agents and no treatment. We found no evidence that any of the antiadhesion agents significantly affected the live birth rate. When gels were compared with no treatment or with hydroflotation agents at second-look laparoscopy (SLL), fewer participants who received a gel showed a worsening adhesion score when compared with those who received no treatment (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, P value 0.005, two studies, 58 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) and with those given hydroflotation agents (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.66, P value 0.003, two studies, 342 women, I(2) = 0%, high-quality evidence). Participants who received steroids were less likely to have a worsening adhesion score (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58, P value 0.0008, two studies, 182 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence). Participants were less likely to have adhesions at SLL if they received a hydroflotation agent or gel than if they received no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, P value < 0.00001, four studies, 566 participants, I(2) = 0%, high-quality evidence; OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.56, P value 0.0006, four studies, 134 women, I(2) = 0%, high-quality evidence, respectively). When gels were compared with hydroflotation agents, participants who received a gel were less likely to have adhesions at SLL than those who received a hydroflotation agent (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.67, P value 0.001, two studies, 342 women, I(2) = 0%, high-quality evidence). No studies evaluated quality of life. In all studies apart from one, investigators stated that they were going to assess serious adverse outcomes associated with treatment agents, and no adverse effects were reported.Results suggest that for a woman with a 77% risk of developing adhesions without treatment, the risk of developing adhesions after use of a gel would be between 26% and 65%. For a woman with an 83% risk of worsening of adhesions after no treatment at initial surgery, the chance when a gel is used would be between 16% and 73%. Similarly, for hydroflotation fluids for a woman with an 84% chance of developing adhesions with no treatment, the risk of developing adhesions when hydroflotation fluid is used would be between 53% and 73%.Several of the included studies could not be included in a meta-analysis: The findings of these studies broadly agreed with the findings of the meta-analyses.The quality of the evidence, which was assessed using the GRADE approach, ranged from low to high. The main reasons for downgrading of evidence included imprecision (small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals) and poor reporting of study methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but no evidence indicates that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society (mAFS) score. Statistical findings should be reported in full.

Uterine-sparing minimally invasive interventions in women with uterine fibroids: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of uterine-sparing interventions for women with symptomatic uterine fibroids who wish to preserve their uterus. DESIGN: Systematic review and indirect comparison meta-analysis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, conference proceedings, trial registers and reference lists were searched up to October 2013 for randomized controlled trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were patient satisfaction, re-intervention and complications rates, reproductive outcomes, and hospitalization and recovery times. RESULTS: Five trials, involving 436 women were included; two compared uterine artery embolization with myomectomy and three compared uterine artery embolization with laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion. Indirect treatment comparison showed that myomectomy and uterine artery embolization resulted in higher rates of patient satisfaction (odds ratio 2.56, 95% credible interval 0.56-11.75 and 2.7, 95% credible interval 1.1-7.14, respectively) and lower rates of clinical failure (odds ratio 0.29, 95% credible interval 0.06-1.46 and 0.37, 95% credible interval 0.13-0.93, respectively) than laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion. Myomectomy resulted in lower re-intervention rate than uterine artery embolization (odds ratio 0.08, 95% credible interval 0.02-0.27) and laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion (odds ratio 0.08, 95% credible interval 0.01-0.37) even though the latter techniques had an advantage over myomectomy because of shorter hospitalization and quicker recovery. There was no evidence of difference between the three techniques in ovarian failure and complications rates. The evidence for reproductive outcomes is poor. CONCLUSION: Our study's results suggest that laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion is less effective than uterine artery embolization and myomectomy in treatment of symptomatic fibroids. The choice between uterine artery embolization and myomectomy should be based on individuals' expectations and fully informed discussion.

Laparoscopic entry techniques.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is a common procedure in gynaecology. Complications associated with laparoscopy are often related to entry. Life-threatening complications include injury to the bowel, bladder, major abdominal vessels, and an anterior abdominal-wall vessel. Other less serious complications can also occur, such as post-operative infection, subcutaneous emphysema and extraperitoneal insufflation. There is no clear consensus as to the optimal method of entry into the peritoneal cavity. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery. SEARCH METHODS: This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. In addition, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO were searched through to February 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials were included when one laparoscopic entry technique was compared with another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by the first three authors. Differences of opinion were registered and resolved by the fourth author. Results for each study were expressed as odds ratio (Peto OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS: The review included 28 randomised controlled trials with 4860 individuals undergoing laparoscopy and evaluated 14 comparisons. Overall there was no evidence of advantage using any single technique in terms of preventing major vascular or visceral complications. Using an open-entry technique compared to a Veress Needle demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of failed entry, Peto OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.92). There were three advantages with direct-trocar entry when compared with Veress Needle entry, in terms of lower rates of failed entry (Peto OR 0.21, 95% Cl 0.14 to 0.31), extraperitoneal insufflation (Peto OR 0.18, 95% Cl 0.13 to 0.26), and omental injury (Peto OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.55).There was also an advantage with radially expanding access system (STEP) trocar entry when compared with standard trocar entry, in terms of trocar site bleeding (Peto OR 0.31, 95% Cl 0.15 to 0.62). Finally, there was an advantage of not lifting the abdominal wall before Veress Needle insertion when compared to lifting in terms of failed entry, without an increase in the complication rate (Peto OR 4.44, 95% CI 2.16 to 9.13). However, studies were limited to small numbers, excluding many patients with previous abdominal surgery and women with a raised body mass index who may have unusually high complication rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: An open-entry technique is associated with a significant reduction in failed entry when compared to a closed-entry technique, with no difference in the incidence of visceral or vascular injury.Significant benefits were noted with the use of a direct-entry technique when compared to the Veress Needle. The use of the Veress Needle was associated with an increased incidence of failed entry, extraperitoneal insufflation and omental injury; direct-trocar entry is therefore a safer closed-entry technique.The low rate of reported complications associated with laparoscopic entry and the small number of participants within the included studies may account for the lack of significant difference in terms of major vascular and visceral injury between entry techniques. Results should be interpreted with caution for outcomes where only single studies were included.

Pain relief in office gynaecology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingography (HSG), sonohysterography and endometrial ablation are increasingly performed in an outpatient setting. The primary reason for failure to complete these procedures is pain. The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of different types of pharmacological intervention for pain relief in office gynaecological procedures. A systematic search of medical databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central register of controlled trials, PsychInfo and CINHAL was conducted in 2009. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of local anaesthetics, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics and intravenous sedation for pain relief during and after hysteroscopy, HSG, sonohysterography and endometrial ablation were reviewed. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects and failure to complete procedures. Where RCTs were not identified, the best available evidence was sought. Each study was assessed against inclusion criterion. Results for each study were expressed as a standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals and combined for meta-analysis with Revman 5 software. Meta-analysis revealed beneficial effect of the use of local anaesthetics during and within 30 min after hysteroscopy; SMD -0.45 (95% CI -0.73, -0.17) and SMD -0.51 (95% CI -0.81, -0.21) respectively. No beneficial effect was noted during HSG. One RCT found evidence of benefit for pain relief during hysterosalpingo-contrastsonography; SMD -1.04 [95% CI -1.44, -0.63]. There was no significant difference in failure to complete hysteroscopy due to cervical stenosis between the intervention and control groups (OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.66, 2.59)), but the incidence of failure to complete the procedure due to pain was significantly less in the intervention group (OR 0.29 (0.12, 0.69)). There is evidence of benefit for the use of local anaesthetics for outpatient hysteroscopy and hysterosalpingo-contrastsonography. Local anaesthetics may be considered when performing hysteroscopy in postmenopausal women to reduce the failure rate.

Pain relief in outpatient hysteroscopy: a survey of current UK clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient hysteroscopy is increasingly being used as a cost-effective alternative to in-patient hysteroscopy under general anaesthesia. Like other outpatient gynaecological procedures, however, it has the potential to cause pain severe enough for the procedure to be abandoned. There are no national guidelines on pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy. METHODS: A postal survey of UK gynaecologists was carried out to evaluate current clinical practice regarding methods of pain relief used during office hysteroscopy. A total of 250 questionnaires were sent out and 115 responses received. RESULTS: Outpatient hysteroscopy was offered by 76.5% of respondents. Respondents reported a wide variation in the use of routine and rescue analgesia, and also in the nature of the analgesia used. One-quarter of those offering outpatient hysteroscopy used no form of analgesia. CONCLUSION: The results showed that whilst there is no consensus on the type of analgesia provided, rescue analgesia is commonly being used, particularly in the form of intracervical blocks.

Pain relief for outpatient hysteroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopy is increasingly performed in an outpatient setting. The primary reason for failure is pain. There is no consensus upon the routine use of analgesia during hysteroscopy. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of different types of pharmacological interventions for pain relief in patients undergoing hysteroscopy. SEARCH STRATEGY: A search of medical literature databases including PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINHAL (to February 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological interventions for pain relief during hysteroscopy were investigated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Results for each study were expressed as a standardised mean difference with 95% confidence interval and combined for meta-analysis with Revman 5 software. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTS were identified involving a total of 3155 participants, with 15 studies included in the meta-analysis.Meta-analysis (nine RCTs, 1296 participants) revealed a significant reduction in the mean pain score for the use of local anaesthetics during the procedure compared with placebo (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.17, I(2) = 82%).Meta-analysis (4 RCTs, 454 participants) demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean pain score for the use of local anaesthetics within 30 minutes after the procedure compared with placebo (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.21, I(2) = 54%).There was no significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of NSAIDS or opioid analgesics compared with placebo during or within 30 minutes after the procedure.There was no significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of local anaesthetics, NSAIDS or opioid analgesics compared with placebo more than 30 minutes after the procedure.There was no significant difference between the number of incidents of failure to complete the procedure due to cervical stenosis between the intervention and control groups (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.59; 6 RCTs, 805 participants).There were significantly fewer incidents of failure to complete the procedure due to pain in the intervention group than in the control group (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69; two studies, 330 participants).Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the intervention and placebo groups with regards to adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of analgesia during and within 30 minutes after outpatient hysteroscopy. 

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation cycles the use of growth hormone has been considered. Improving the outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation is especially important for subfertile women who are considered 'poor responders'. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Groups trials register (June 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1988 to June 2009) and Biological Abstracts (1969 to June 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed the research question and provided outcome data for intervention and control participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data was performed independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (440 subfertile couples) were included. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome measures and adverse events in the routine use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. However, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in both live birth rates and pregnancy rates favouring the use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols in women who are considered poor responders without increasing adverse events, OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 15.35 and OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.20 respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of growth hormone in poor responders has been found to show a significant improvement in live birth rates, we were unable to identify which sub-group of poor responders would benefit the most from adjuvant growth hormone. The result needs to be interpreted with caution, the included trials were few in number and small sample size. Therefore, before recommending growth hormone adjuvant in in-vitro fertilisation further research is necessary to fully define its role.

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation cycles the use of growth hormone has been considered. Improving the outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation is especially important for subfertile women who are considered 'poor responders'. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Groups trials register (June 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1988 to June 2009) and Biological Abstracts (1969 to June 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed the research question and provided outcome data for intervention and control participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data was performed independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (440 subfertile couples) were included. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome measures and adverse events in the routine use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. However, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in both live birth rates and pregnancy rates favouring the use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols in women who are considered poor responders without increasing adverse events, OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 15.35 and OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.20 respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of growth hormone in poor responders has been found to show a significant improvement in live birth rates, we were unable to identify which sub-group of poor responders would benefit the most from adjuvant growth hormone. The result needs to be interpreted with caution, the included trials were few in number and small sample size. Therefore, before recommending growth hormone adjuvant in in-vitro fertilisation further research is necessary to fully define its role.

Postoperative procedures for improving fertility following pelvic reproductive surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hydrotubation with oil-soluble contrast media for unexplained infertility and adhesiolysis for infertility due to peritubal adhesions are primary procedures that are of recognised benefit. It is less clear whether postoperative procedures such as hydrotubation or second-look laparoscopy with adhesiolysis are beneficial following pelvic reproductive surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the value of postoperative hydrotubation and second-look laparoscopy with adhesiolysis following female pelvic reproductive surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register (August 2008), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2008), EMBASE (1980 to August 2008), PsycINFO (1967 to August 2008), Current Contents (1993 to August 2008), Biological Abstracts (1969 to August 2008), CINAHL (1982 to August 2008) and reference lists of identified articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials in which a postoperative procedure was compared with a control group following pelvic reproductive surgery were considered for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five randomised controlled trials were identified and included in this updated review. An attempt was made to obtain further information from the authors of all five trials. All trials were assessed for quality. The studied outcomes were pregnancy, live birth, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage rates, and the rates of tubal patency and procedure-related complications. Review authors extracted the data independently and the odds ratios (OR) were estimated for these dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials were identified and included in this review. The odds of pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 2.21) and live birth (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.59) were not significantly different with postoperative hydrotubation versus no hydrotubation. The odds of pregnancy (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.07) or live birth (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.32) were also not significantly different with second-look laparoscopy and adhesiolysis versus no second-look laparoscopy. Whether hydrotubation was early or late and whether hydrotubation fluid contained steroid or not had no significant impact on the odds of pregnancy or live birth. Late antibiotic hydrotubation increased the odds of at least one patent fallopian tube when compared with early hydrotubation in women (OR 7.72, 95% CI 2.50 to 8.93). The odds of infective morbidity significantly increased with early hydrotubation when compared with late non-antibiotic hydrotubation (OR 4.72, 95% CI 2.50 to 8.93). When comparing late hydrotubation following tubal stent removal with early hydrotubation in women who had no tubal stenting, there was no significant difference in pregnancy or live birth rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the routine practice of hydrotubation or second-look laparoscopy following female pelvic reproductive surgery. The studies on which this conclusion is based were either of poor quality or underpowered. These interventions should be performed in the context of a good quality, adequately powered randomised controlled trial. Postoperative hydrotubation with fluid containing antibiotic may offer benefit over hydrotubation fluid without antibiotic following tubal surgery. A randomised controlled trial of postoperative hydrotubation with antibiotic-containing fluid versus no hydrotubation for improving fertility following tubal surgery is justified.

Pain relief during hysterosalpingography: a national survey.

Hysterosalpingography is a part of the infertility workup and can be painful. We conducted a postal survey of Obstetric and Gynaecology departments in the UK to evaluate the current clinical practice regarding the methods used to provide pain relief during hysterosalpingography. A total of 166 questionnaires were sent and 104 responses were received. Hysterosalpingography was offered by 93.3% of respondents. Respondents reported a wide variation in clinical practice with regards to the timing and the nature of analgesia used. Interestingly, 38% of respondents did not use analgesia at all. This variation in clinical practice may reflect the sparsity of evidence contained within the literature.