Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility.
Abortion, Spontaneous
/ epidemiology
Cesarean Section
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Infertility, Female
/ etiology
Leiomyomatosis
/ complications
Live Birth
/ epidemiology
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Rate
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Uterine Myomectomy
/ methods
Uterine Neoplasms
/ complications
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 01 2020
29 01 2020
Historique:
entrez:
30
1
2020
pubmed:
30
1
2020
medline:
23
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fibroids are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on fertility. In women requesting preservation of fertility, fibroids can be surgically removed (myomectomy) by laparotomy, laparoscopically or hysteroscopically depending on the size, site and type of fibroid. Myomectomy is however a procedure that is not without risk and can result in serious complications. It is therefore essential to determine whether such a procedure can result in an improvement in fertility and, if so, to then determine the ideal surgical approach. To examine the effect of myomectomy on fertility outcomes and to compare different surgical approaches. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and reference list of relevant papers. The final search was in February 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention or where different surgical approaches are compared regarding the effect on fertility outcomes in a group of infertile women suffering from uterine fibroids. Data collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with the procedure suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. This review included four RCTs with 442 participants. The evidence was very low-quality with the main limitations being due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and indirectness. Myomectomy versus no intervention One study examined the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention on reproductive outcomes. We are uncertain whether myomectomy improves clinical pregnancy rate for intramural (odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 6.14; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.66; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.09; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 3.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 14.57; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, we are uncertain whether myomectomy reduces miscarriage rate for intramural fibroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.78; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous fibroids (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.97; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous fibroids (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.10 to 6.54; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 12.33; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on live birth, preterm delivery, ongoing pregnancy or caesarean section rate. Laparoscopic myomectomy versus myomectomy by laparotomy or mini-laparotomy Two studies compared laparoscopic myomectomy to myomectomy at laparotomy or mini-laparotomy. We are uncertain whether laparoscopic myomectomy compared to laparotomy or mini-laparotomy improves live birth rate (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.50; 177 participants; two studies; I There is limited evidence to determine the role of myomectomy for infertility in women with fibroids as only one trial compared myomectomy with no myomectomy. If the decision is made to have a myomectomy, the current evidence does not indicate a superior method (laparoscopy, laparotomy or different electrosurgical systems) to improve rates of live birth, preterm delivery, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, or caesarean section. Furthermore, the existing evidence needs to be viewed with caution due to the small number of events, minimal number of studies and very low-quality evidence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fibroids are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on fertility. In women requesting preservation of fertility, fibroids can be surgically removed (myomectomy) by laparotomy, laparoscopically or hysteroscopically depending on the size, site and type of fibroid. Myomectomy is however a procedure that is not without risk and can result in serious complications. It is therefore essential to determine whether such a procedure can result in an improvement in fertility and, if so, to then determine the ideal surgical approach.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effect of myomectomy on fertility outcomes and to compare different surgical approaches.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and reference list of relevant papers. The final search was in February 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention or where different surgical approaches are compared regarding the effect on fertility outcomes in a group of infertile women suffering from uterine fibroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with the procedure suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included four RCTs with 442 participants. The evidence was very low-quality with the main limitations being due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and indirectness. Myomectomy versus no intervention One study examined the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention on reproductive outcomes. We are uncertain whether myomectomy improves clinical pregnancy rate for intramural (odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 6.14; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.66; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.09; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 3.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 14.57; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, we are uncertain whether myomectomy reduces miscarriage rate for intramural fibroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.78; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous fibroids (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.97; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous fibroids (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.10 to 6.54; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 12.33; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on live birth, preterm delivery, ongoing pregnancy or caesarean section rate. Laparoscopic myomectomy versus myomectomy by laparotomy or mini-laparotomy Two studies compared laparoscopic myomectomy to myomectomy at laparotomy or mini-laparotomy. We are uncertain whether laparoscopic myomectomy compared to laparotomy or mini-laparotomy improves live birth rate (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.50; 177 participants; two studies; I
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to determine the role of myomectomy for infertility in women with fibroids as only one trial compared myomectomy with no myomectomy. If the decision is made to have a myomectomy, the current evidence does not indicate a superior method (laparoscopy, laparotomy or different electrosurgical systems) to improve rates of live birth, preterm delivery, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, or caesarean section. Furthermore, the existing evidence needs to be viewed with caution due to the small number of events, minimal number of studies and very low-quality evidence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31995657
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003857.pub4
pmc: PMC6989141
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD003857Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Fertil Steril. 1999 Jul;72(1):109-14
pubmed: 10428157
Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Aug;94(2):168-71
pubmed: 10432121
Singapore Med J. 1988 Feb;29(1):35-7
pubmed: 3406762
Fertil Steril. 2007 Oct;88(4):933-41
pubmed: 17434505
Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Sep;94(3):341-7
pubmed: 10472856
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2001 Apr;15(2):129-34
pubmed: 11379009
Hum Reprod. 2010 Oct;25(10):2475-9
pubmed: 20719814
Hum Reprod Update. 2008 Mar-Apr;14(2):101-19
pubmed: 18063608
Fertil Steril. 2009 Apr;91(4):1215-23
pubmed: 18339376
Hum Reprod Update. 2000 Nov-Dec;6(6):588-94
pubmed: 11129692
Hum Reprod. 1997 Sep;12(9):1931-4
pubmed: 9363709
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012 Jan-Feb;19(1):63-7
pubmed: 22070929
Fertil Steril. 1997 Nov;68(5):881-6
pubmed: 9389820
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1994 Aug;1(4 Pt 1):307-11
pubmed: 9138869
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003 Oct 10;110(2):215-9
pubmed: 12969587
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2013 Nov;56(6):375-81
pubmed: 24396816
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2014;41(3):335-8
pubmed: 24992788
Int J Ayurveda Res. 2010 Jan;1(1):55-7
pubmed: 20532100
Hum Reprod. 2010 Feb;25(2):418-29
pubmed: 19910322
J R Soc Med. 2003 Jun;96(6):302-4
pubmed: 12782700
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011 Aug;51(4):289-95
pubmed: 21806566
BMC Surg. 2016 Feb 27;16:9
pubmed: 26922480
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1999 May;6(2):155-8
pubmed: 10226124
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 26;(12):CD005073
pubmed: 25541260
Hum Reprod Update. 1995 Jan;1(1):81-90
pubmed: 9080209
Int J Fertil Steril. 2015 Jul-Sep;9(2):168-75
pubmed: 26246874
J Reprod Med. 2000 Jan;45(1):23-30
pubmed: 10664943
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Nov;205(5):492.e1-5
pubmed: 22035951
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD003857
pubmed: 23152222
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2002 Jan;266(1):30-3
pubmed: 11998961
Acta Eur Fertil. 1989 Jan-Feb;20(1):11-3
pubmed: 2781982
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1993 Jan;40(1):45-50
pubmed: 8094350
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24(1):79-82
pubmed: 12691325
BMJ. 2009 Jan 16;338:b126
pubmed: 19151067
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2006 Feb;22(2):106-9
pubmed: 16603437
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jul;26(7):1735-40
pubmed: 21540245
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996 Apr;65(2):209-14
pubmed: 8730626
J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017 Jul-Sep;10(3):185-193
pubmed: 29142447
Hum Reprod Update. 2007 Sep-Oct;13(5):465-76
pubmed: 17584819
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014 Feb;30(2):149-52
pubmed: 24303914
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Sep;116(3):641-52
pubmed: 20733447
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Dec;1034:84-92
pubmed: 15731301
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1999 Nov;6(4):441-5
pubmed: 10548702
Fertil Steril. 1995 Apr;63(4):703-8
pubmed: 7890051
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 May;133(2):206-11
pubmed: 26892690
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2007 Dec;33(6):849-54
pubmed: 18001453
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Mar 26;2018:8367068
pubmed: 30151390
Fertil Steril. 1999 Mar;71(3):571-4
pubmed: 10065802
Oncologist. 2015 Nov;20(11):1274-82
pubmed: 26382742
Hum Reprod. 2000 Aug;15(8):1751-7
pubmed: 10920098
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Apr;57(2):264-269
pubmed: 29673671
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003 Dec 10;111(2):197-203
pubmed: 14597251
Fertil Steril. 2010 Jul;94(2):724-9
pubmed: 19406399
Hum Reprod. 1999 Jul;14(7):1735-40
pubmed: 10402378
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;(3):CD003857
pubmed: 16856021
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;198(4):357-66
pubmed: 18395031
Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Jul;23(1):2-14
pubmed: 21549642
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000 Jan;88(1):85-90
pubmed: 10659923
Hum Reprod. 2001 Jul;16(7):1489-92
pubmed: 11425835
Hum Reprod. 2000 Dec;15(12):2663-8
pubmed: 11098042