The Effect of Endometrial Scratch on Pregnancy Rate in Women with Previous Intrauterine Insemination Failure: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of endometrial scratch on the pregnancy rate among women with previous failed intrauterine insemination (IUI). A systematic search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ISI web of science from inception to November 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared endometrial scratch in the intervention group versus placebo or no intervention in the control group among infertile women with previous failure of IUI regarding different pregnancy outcomes. Revman software was utilized for performing our meta-analysis. Our main outcomes were biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates. Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 989 patients. We found endometrial scratch significantly improved the biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates in comparison with the control group among women with previous IUI failure (p < 0.001). Moreover, the live birth rate was significantly increased among the endometrial scratch group (RR = 2.00, 95% CI [1.20, 3.34], p = 0.008). In conclusion, endometrial scratch is effective in improving pregnancy outcomes among women with previous IUI failure. More trials are required to confirm our findings.

Prophylactic tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss and related morbidities during hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic tranexamic acid (TXA) versus a control (placebo or no treatment) during hysterectomy for benign conditions. Six databases were screened from inception to January 23, 2022. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Outcomes were summarized as weighted mean differences and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals in a random-effects model. Five studies, comprising six arms and 911 patients were included in the study. Two and three studies had an overall unclear and low risk of bias, respectively. Estimated intraoperative blood loss, requirement for postoperative blood transfusion, and requirement for intraoperative topical hemostatic agents were significantly reduced in a prophylactic TXA group when compared with a control group. Moreover, postoperative hemoglobin level was significantly higher in the prophylactic TXA group than in the control group. Conversely, the frequency of self-limiting nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the prophylactic TXA group than in the control group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of surgery duration, hospital stay, and diarrhea rate. All the RCTs reported no incidence of major adverse events in either group, such as mortality, thromboembolic events, visual disturbances, or seizures. There was no publication bias for any outcome, and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses demonstrated stability of the findings. Among patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions, prophylactic TXA appeared largely safe and correlated with substantial reductions in estimated intraoperative blood loss and related morbidities.

Prophylactic tranexamic acid during myomectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the clinical efficacy and safety of prophylactic tranexamic acid (TXA) versus control (normal saline/no treatment) during myomectomy. METHODS: Six databases were screened from inception until 21-February-2022. The eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. The outcomes were summarized as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies, comprising eight arms and 571 patients (TXA = 304 patients, control = 267 patients) were analyzed. The included studies had an overall low risk of bias. The mean intraoperative blood loss (MD = -224.34 ml, 95% CI [-303.06, -145.61], p < 0.001), mean postoperative blood loss, and mean total blood loss were significantly reduced in favor of the prophylactic TXA group. Additionally, the mean postoperative hemoglobin (MD = 0.4 mg/dl, 95% CI [0.11, 0.68], p = 0.006) and mean postoperative hematocrit levels were significantly higher in favor of the prophylactic TXA group. While the mean hospital stay was significantly reduced in favor of the prophylactic TXA group (MD = -0.39 d, 95% [-0.74, -0.04], p = 0.03), there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean operation time and rate of blood transfusion. None of the participants in both groups developed any incidence of thromboembolic events. The rate of nausea was significantly higher in disfavor of the prophylactic TXA group (RR = 2.68, 95% CI [1.11, 6.43], p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing myomectomy, prophylactic TXA was largely safe and linked to substantial reductions in perioperative blood loss and related morbidities.

Warm saline effectiveness for pain relief in office hysteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of warm distension medium versus room temperature distension medium on pain control among patients undergoing office hysteroscopy. METHODS: A systematic search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ISI web of science from inception to October 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) compared warmed saline distension medium in the intervention group versus room temperature distension medium in the control group among women undergoing diagnostic and/or operative office hysteroscopy. Revman software was utilized for performing our meta-analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain scores evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS) during and after the procedure. Our secondary outcome was the patient satisfaction between both groups. RESULTS: Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 441 patients. We found warm saline was linked to a significant reduction in the VAS pain score during the procedure compared to the control group (mean difference [MD] = -1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.80, -0.45], p = 0.001). Moreover, the VAS pain score after the procedure was significantly declined among the warm saline group (MD = -0.62, 95% CI [-0.97, -0.27], p = 0.005). Interestingly, more patients were significantly satisfied with warm saline distension medium application compared to room temperature group (odds ratio [OR] = 3.71, 95% CI [2.01, 6.86], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Warm saline application in office hysteroscopy is effective in reducing pain during and after the procedure as well as improvement in patient satisfaction.

EMLA (lidocaine-prilocaine) cream for pain relief during hysterosalpingography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials.

We systematically investigated the efficacy and safety of EMLA (5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream) versus placebo for pain relief among infertile patients undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG). We screened four databases from inception until 25 November 2020. We included only randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and assessed their risk of bias. The main efficacy outcomes included safety and pain scores during the different stages of HSG. The pooled outcomes were summarised as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Three RCTs were included, comprising 258 patients (131 and 127 patients received EMLA and placebo, respectively). All RCTs revealed an overall low risk of bias. EMLA significantly reduced pain perception during cervical instrumentation of tenaculum and cannula (MD = -1.53, 95% CI [-2.59, -0.47], p = 0.005) and at 24 h after completion of HSG (MD = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.57, -0.03], p = 0.04). Despite EMLA decreased pain perception during the other procedural stages of HSG, the differences were not statistically significant compared with placebo. EMLA was safe and free of local and systemic adverse reactions. This meta-analysis advocates that topical application of 5% EMLA cream is safe and correlates with decreased pain perception during HSG, particularly during the cervical instrumentation step and at 24 h after HSG completion.

Preoperative duloxetine on postoperative pain after laparoscopic gynecological surgeries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of preoperative duloxetine on postoperative pain management after gynecologic laparoscopic surgeries. METHODS: A systematic search was done in Cochrane Library, PubMed, ISI web of science, and Scopus from inception to September 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared preoperative duloxetine (intervention group) versus placebo (control group) among women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgeries. Our primary outcomes were pain scores evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively. Our secondary outcomes were the time required for the first analgesic request in minutes, postoperative analgesic consumption in milligrams, length of hospital stay in days, and side effects. RESULTS: Four RCTs with a total number of 244 patients were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. We found duloxetine was linked to a significant reduction in VAS pain scores at different time intervals. The first analgesic request was significantly earlier in the placebo group than in the duloxetine group (p = 0.03). In addition, duloxetine significantly reduced the postoperative analgesic consumption compared to placebo (MD= -41.97, 95% CI [-53.23, -30.72], p<0.001). However, both groups did not differ in the length of hospital stay and side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine administration prior to gynecological laparoscopic surgeries is safe and effective in improving postoperative pain and analgesia.

Effect of reduced needle versus standard needle on pain experience during oocyte retrieval procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare reduced needle versus standard needle regarding pain experience among women undergoing oocyte retrieval procedures. METHODS: A systematic search was done in Cochrane Library, PubMed, ISI web of science, and Scopus during April 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) compared reduced needle versus standard needle among women undergoing ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval procedures. Revman software was utilized for performing our meta-analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain scores evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during the procedure, directly post-procedure, and 30 min post-procedure. Our secondary outcomes were the request for more analgesia, clinical pregnancy rate, and rate of vaginal bleeding less than expected. RESULTS: Six RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 1063 patients. We found reduced needle was linked to a significant reduction in VAS pain score during and directly after the procedure, respectively (MD= -1.54, 95% CI [-2.38, -0.70], p = .003 and MD= -1.14, 95% CI [-1.38, -0.91], p < .001). After removal of the reported heterogeneity, the reduced needle had significantly reduced the pain score 30 min post-procedure and request for more analgesia in comparison with standard needle (p < .001). No significant difference was found between both groups regarding clinical pregnancy rate (p = .17). More patients in reduced needle group were reported to vaginally bleed less than expected compared to standard needle group (RR = 1.91, 95% CI [1.35, 2.70], p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Patient perceived pain, analgesic requirement, and vaginal bleeding are decreased with reduced needle administration versus standard needle without affecting the clinical pregnancy rate in oocyte retrieval procedure.

Vasopressin to Control Blood Loss during Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Minimizing intraoperative blood loss during hysterectomy is crucial to lessen associated perioperative morbidity. The aim of this investigation is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vasopressin versus normal saline in controlling intraoperative blood loss during hysterectomy. DATA SOURCES: We screened 5 major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception till July 18, 2021. We used the following query search in all databases: (vasopressin OR arginine vasopressin OR argipressin OR antidiuretic hormone) AND (hysterectomy) AND (saline OR placebo OR control OR no treatment) AND (randomized OR randomised OR randomly). There was no language restriction during database screening. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We considered all studies that met the following evidence-based criteria: (1) patients: individuals undergoing hysterectomy for any indication, (2) intervention: vasopressin, (3) comparator: normal saline, placebo, or no treatment, (4) outcomes: reliable extraction of any of our endpoints, and (5) study design: RCTs. We assessed risk of bias of included studies and pooled endpoints as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We performed statistical analysis using the Review Manager software, version 5.4.0. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Seven RCTs with an overall low risk of bias met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis included a total of 455 patients; 232 and 223 patients were allocated to vasopressin and control group, respectively. The majority of RCTs were vaginal hysterectomy (n = 5), few abdominal hysterectomy, (n = 2) and no laparoscopic hysterectomy. The mean estimated intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in favor of the vasopressin group compared with the control group (n = 6 RCTs, MD = -119.85 mL, 95% CI [-177.55, -62.14], p <.001). However, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding mean operating time, mean change in postoperative hemoglobin, mean hospital stay, rate of febrile morbidity, rate of pelvic infection, rate of perioperative blood transfusion, and rate of perioperative complications. CONCLUSION: Compared with normal saline, vasopressin significantly reduced the estimated blood loss during hysterectomy but did not change any clinically significant outcomes. In addition, vasopressin was safe and did not correlate with an increase in the rates of febrile morbidity or pelvic infection.