不孕和非不孕妇女子宫生态位切除术后的生育和妊娠结局:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析

Carry Verberkt M.D. , Saskia J.M. Klein Meuleman M.D. , Johannes C.F. Ket , Madelon van Wely M.D., Ph.D. , Eva Bouwsma M.D., Ph.D. , Judith A.F. Huirne M.D., Ph.D.
{"title":"不孕和非不孕妇女子宫生态位切除术后的生育和妊娠结局:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Carry Verberkt M.D. ,&nbsp;Saskia J.M. Klein Meuleman M.D. ,&nbsp;Johannes C.F. Ket ,&nbsp;Madelon van Wely M.D., Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Eva Bouwsma M.D., Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Judith A.F. Huirne M.D., Ph.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.xfnr.2022.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To assess the effect of a uterine niche resection on fertility and pregnancy outcomes. We compared these outcomes in women with and without infertility, as we hypothesized that in the group with infertility, the presence of the niche may contribute to the failure to conceive. The focus on reproductive and pregnancy outcomes as well as the differentiation in study populations is novel and has not been a topic of research up until now.</p></div><div><h3>Evidence Review</h3><p>The databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines from inception until July 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series with at least 10 women were included if they reported fertility and/or pregnancy outcomes after any type of niche surgery among women with infertility or without the diagnosis of infertility. The risk of bias and quality of the included studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and a set of niche-specific criteria. The primary outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes included pregnancy and miscarriage rates, occurrence of an ectopic pregnancy, uterine dehiscence, and other obstetric complications. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes live birth, pregnancy, and miscarriage rates. The proportion with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each individual study, stratified for type of surgery and fertility status.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 3,825 records were identified, of which 21 articles were included (1 RCT, 1 case series, and 5 prospective and 14 retrospective cohort studies). The RCT compared a surgical intervention with expectant management, whereas the other studies had an observational design. Sixteen studies reported on fertility outcomes in women with infertility (n = 648), and 5 studies reported on fertility outcomes in women without a diagnosis of infertility (n = 237). The reported surgical procedures were hysteroscopic niche resection (HNR) (n = 14), vaginal niche resection (n = 7), laparoscopic niche resection (n = 7), and laparotomic niche resection (n = 2). The overall methodological quality of included studies was moderate to poor with a high risk of bias. The statistical heterogeneity among the included studies ranged between 0 and 88%. Overall, the effect of a niche resection on the live birth rate was lower in women without infertility than in women with infertility: 36% (95% CI, 26 %–46%) vs. 54% (95% CI, 44%–64%).The live birth rates per different operative technique showed similar trends: HNR, 52% (95% CI, 40%–64%) vs. 55% (95% CI, 38%–71%); laparoscopic niche resection, 36% (95% CI, 25%–48%) vs. 42% (95% CI, 30%–55%); and vaginal niche resection, 25% (95% CI, 9%–46%) vs. 60% (95% CI, 52%–67%). The only RCT performed showed a significantly higher pregnancy rate after HNR than that after expectant management (N = 61 women; relative risk, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.32–4.39) in women diagnosed with infertility. There were no significant differences in the pregnancy and miscarriage rates between the different populations. A cesarean scar pregnancy was reported in 0.97% of pregnancies. After a hysteroscopic approach, in 4 (2.8%) of 145 deliveries, a uterine dehiscence or rupture was reported. There was no uterine dehiscence described after the other niche interventions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>On the basis of the current available data, it is not advised to perform a niche resection to improve fertility outcomes. Well-designed comparative studies are necessary to investigate whether there is a role for niche surgery in patients with regard to fertility outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73011,"journal":{"name":"F&S reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666571922000068/pdfft?md5=45b3b2be112c9a70b7a01eff9c5657a5&pid=1-s2.0-S2666571922000068-main.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fertility and pregnancy outcomes after a uterine niche resection in women with and without infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Carry Verberkt M.D. ,&nbsp;Saskia J.M. Klein Meuleman M.D. ,&nbsp;Johannes C.F. Ket ,&nbsp;Madelon van Wely M.D., Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Eva Bouwsma M.D., Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Judith A.F. Huirne M.D., Ph.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xfnr.2022.05.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To assess the effect of a uterine niche resection on fertility and pregnancy outcomes. We compared these outcomes in women with and without infertility, as we hypothesized that in the group with infertility, the presence of the niche may contribute to the failure to conceive. The focus on reproductive and pregnancy outcomes as well as the differentiation in study populations is novel and has not been a topic of research up until now.</p></div><div><h3>Evidence Review</h3><p>The databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines from inception until July 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series with at least 10 women were included if they reported fertility and/or pregnancy outcomes after any type of niche surgery among women with infertility or without the diagnosis of infertility. The risk of bias and quality of the included studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and a set of niche-specific criteria. The primary outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes included pregnancy and miscarriage rates, occurrence of an ectopic pregnancy, uterine dehiscence, and other obstetric complications. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes live birth, pregnancy, and miscarriage rates. The proportion with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each individual study, stratified for type of surgery and fertility status.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 3,825 records were identified, of which 21 articles were included (1 RCT, 1 case series, and 5 prospective and 14 retrospective cohort studies). The RCT compared a surgical intervention with expectant management, whereas the other studies had an observational design. Sixteen studies reported on fertility outcomes in women with infertility (n = 648), and 5 studies reported on fertility outcomes in women without a diagnosis of infertility (n = 237). The reported surgical procedures were hysteroscopic niche resection (HNR) (n = 14), vaginal niche resection (n = 7), laparoscopic niche resection (n = 7), and laparotomic niche resection (n = 2). The overall methodological quality of included studies was moderate to poor with a high risk of bias. The statistical heterogeneity among the included studies ranged between 0 and 88%. Overall, the effect of a niche resection on the live birth rate was lower in women without infertility than in women with infertility: 36% (95% CI, 26 %–46%) vs. 54% (95% CI, 44%–64%).The live birth rates per different operative technique showed similar trends: HNR, 52% (95% CI, 40%–64%) vs. 55% (95% CI, 38%–71%); laparoscopic niche resection, 36% (95% CI, 25%–48%) vs. 42% (95% CI, 30%–55%); and vaginal niche resection, 25% (95% CI, 9%–46%) vs. 60% (95% CI, 52%–67%). The only RCT performed showed a significantly higher pregnancy rate after HNR than that after expectant management (N = 61 women; relative risk, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.32–4.39) in women diagnosed with infertility. There were no significant differences in the pregnancy and miscarriage rates between the different populations. A cesarean scar pregnancy was reported in 0.97% of pregnancies. After a hysteroscopic approach, in 4 (2.8%) of 145 deliveries, a uterine dehiscence or rupture was reported. There was no uterine dehiscence described after the other niche interventions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>On the basis of the current available data, it is not advised to perform a niche resection to improve fertility outcomes. Well-designed comparative studies are necessary to investigate whether there is a role for niche surgery in patients with regard to fertility outcomes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73011,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"F&S reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666571922000068/pdfft?md5=45b3b2be112c9a70b7a01eff9c5657a5&pid=1-s2.0-S2666571922000068-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"F&S reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666571922000068\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F&S reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666571922000068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的探讨子宫生态位切除术对生育和妊娠结局的影响。我们比较了不孕妇女和非不孕妇女的这些结果,因为我们假设在不孕妇女中,生态位的存在可能导致不孕。对生殖和妊娠结局以及研究人群差异的关注是新颖的,迄今为止尚未成为研究的主题。证据评价根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,从开始到2021年7月19日,系统地检索了PubMed、Embase和Web of Science数据库。随机对照试验(rct)、队列研究、病例对照研究和病例系列纳入至少10名妇女,如果他们报告了不孕或未诊断为不孕的妇女在任何类型的利基手术后的生育和/或妊娠结局。纳入研究的偏倚风险和质量采用Cochrane偏倚风险工具、纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表和一套特定利基标准进行评估。主要观察指标为活产率。次要结局包括妊娠和流产率、异位妊娠的发生、子宫裂和其他产科并发症。对活产率、妊娠率和流产率进行meta分析。计算每个单独研究的相应95%置信区间(CI)的比例,并根据手术类型和生育状况进行分层。结果共纳入3825篇文献,其中纳入21篇文献(1项随机对照试验、1项病例系列研究、5项前瞻性研究和14项回顾性队列研究)。该RCT比较了手术干预与预期治疗,而其他研究则采用观察设计。16项研究报告了不孕症妇女的生育结果(n = 648), 5项研究报告了未诊断为不孕症妇女的生育结果(n = 237)。报道的手术方法为宫腔镜生态位切除术(HNR) (n = 14)、阴道生态位切除术(n = 7)、腹腔镜生态位切除术(n = 7)和剖腹手术生态位切除术(n = 2)。纳入研究的总体方法学质量为中等至较差,存在较高的偏倚风险。纳入研究的统计异质性在0 ~ 88%之间。总体而言,小生境切除对无不孕妇女活产率的影响低于不孕妇女:36% (95% CI, 26% -46%)对54% (95% CI, 44%-64%)。不同手术方式的活产率呈现相似趋势:HNR为52% (95% CI, 40%-64%) vs. 55% (95% CI, 38%-71%);腹腔镜小生境切除术,36% (95% CI, 25%-48%) vs. 42% (95% CI, 30%-55%);阴道生态位切除术,25% (95% CI, 9%-46%) vs. 60% (95% CI, 52%-67%)。唯一进行的RCT显示,HNR后的妊娠率明显高于妊娠管理后的妊娠率(N = 61名妇女;相对危险度2.41;95% CI, 1.32-4.39)。不同人群的怀孕率和流产率没有显著差异。剖宫产瘢痕妊娠发生率为0.97%。经宫腔镜检查后,145例分娩中有4例(2.8%)出现子宫开裂或破裂。其他小生境干预后没有出现子宫裂。结论根据现有资料,不建议为改善生育结果而行小位切除。设计良好的比较研究是必要的,以调查是否有一个作用,在病人的生育结果方面,小生境手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Fertility and pregnancy outcomes after a uterine niche resection in women with and without infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To assess the effect of a uterine niche resection on fertility and pregnancy outcomes. We compared these outcomes in women with and without infertility, as we hypothesized that in the group with infertility, the presence of the niche may contribute to the failure to conceive. The focus on reproductive and pregnancy outcomes as well as the differentiation in study populations is novel and has not been a topic of research up until now.

Evidence Review

The databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines from inception until July 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series with at least 10 women were included if they reported fertility and/or pregnancy outcomes after any type of niche surgery among women with infertility or without the diagnosis of infertility. The risk of bias and quality of the included studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and a set of niche-specific criteria. The primary outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes included pregnancy and miscarriage rates, occurrence of an ectopic pregnancy, uterine dehiscence, and other obstetric complications. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes live birth, pregnancy, and miscarriage rates. The proportion with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each individual study, stratified for type of surgery and fertility status.

Results

A total of 3,825 records were identified, of which 21 articles were included (1 RCT, 1 case series, and 5 prospective and 14 retrospective cohort studies). The RCT compared a surgical intervention with expectant management, whereas the other studies had an observational design. Sixteen studies reported on fertility outcomes in women with infertility (n = 648), and 5 studies reported on fertility outcomes in women without a diagnosis of infertility (n = 237). The reported surgical procedures were hysteroscopic niche resection (HNR) (n = 14), vaginal niche resection (n = 7), laparoscopic niche resection (n = 7), and laparotomic niche resection (n = 2). The overall methodological quality of included studies was moderate to poor with a high risk of bias. The statistical heterogeneity among the included studies ranged between 0 and 88%. Overall, the effect of a niche resection on the live birth rate was lower in women without infertility than in women with infertility: 36% (95% CI, 26 %–46%) vs. 54% (95% CI, 44%–64%).The live birth rates per different operative technique showed similar trends: HNR, 52% (95% CI, 40%–64%) vs. 55% (95% CI, 38%–71%); laparoscopic niche resection, 36% (95% CI, 25%–48%) vs. 42% (95% CI, 30%–55%); and vaginal niche resection, 25% (95% CI, 9%–46%) vs. 60% (95% CI, 52%–67%). The only RCT performed showed a significantly higher pregnancy rate after HNR than that after expectant management (N = 61 women; relative risk, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.32–4.39) in women diagnosed with infertility. There were no significant differences in the pregnancy and miscarriage rates between the different populations. A cesarean scar pregnancy was reported in 0.97% of pregnancies. After a hysteroscopic approach, in 4 (2.8%) of 145 deliveries, a uterine dehiscence or rupture was reported. There was no uterine dehiscence described after the other niche interventions.

Conclusion

On the basis of the current available data, it is not advised to perform a niche resection to improve fertility outcomes. Well-designed comparative studies are necessary to investigate whether there is a role for niche surgery in patients with regard to fertility outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
F&S reviews
F&S reviews Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Urology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
61 days
期刊最新文献
Stressed out: how forces from uterine contractions influence fibroid progression, a Narrative Review Polycystic ovary syndrome and miscarriage: a narrative review Fertility, family building, and contraception in adolescents and young adults with sickle cell disease: a scoping review Biomarkers to predict improvement of sperm parameters and hypogonadism after varicocele repair The composition of menstrual fluid, its applications, and recent advances to understand the endometrial environment: a narrative review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1