Impact of Surgery for Deep Infiltrative Endometriosis before In Vitro Fertilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
Tipo de produção
Data de publicação
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
DOMINGUEZ, Jose Antonio
CARMONA, Francisco
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Objective: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare reproductive outcomes in patients who underwent surgery for deep infiltrative endometriosis (DIE) before in vitro fertilization (IVF) with those in patients who underwent IVF without a previous surgery for DIE, to analyze data according to different types of surgery (complete or incomplete) or subgroups of patients (DIE with or without bowel involvement), and to assess surgical and IVF complications and data regarding safety concerns. Data Sources: A systematic literature search from January 1980 to November 2019 with no language restriction was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search strategy used the following Medical Subject Headings terms: ""in vitro,"" ""fertilization,"" ""IVF,"" ""assisted reproduction,"" ""colorectal,"" ""endometriosis,"" ""deep,"" ""infiltrating,"" ""deep infiltrative endometriosis,"" ""intestinal,"" ""bowel,"" ""rectovaginal,"" ""uterosacral,"" ""vaginal,"" and ""bladder."" Methods of Study Selection: We included studies that compared reproductive outcomes in women with infertility with DIE who received IVF with or without a previous surgery for DIE lesions. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan v.5.3; Cochrane Training, London, United Kingdom). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the method recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. Tabulation, Integration, and Results: The systematic search retrieved 150 articles; 98 studies were potentially eligible, and their full texts were reviewed. Of these, 12 studies met our inclusion criteria, and 5 presented data suitable for inclusion in a meta-analysis; however, 2 of the studies provided overlapping data, and only the larger study was finally included. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were found. The pregnancy rate per patient was 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-2.64), the pregnancy rate per cycle was 1.84 (95% CI, 1.26-2.70), and the live birth rate per patient was 2.22 (95% CI, 1.42-3.46) times more likely for operated patients than for nonoperated ones. The addition of data from the incomplete surgery groups also showed a higher pregnancy rate per patient for surgery before IVF (odds ratio [OR] 1.63; 95% CI, 1.16-2.28). The results favor previous surgery in DIE with digestive involvement (OR 2.43; 95% CI, 1.13-5.22) and also in DIE without digestive involvement (OR 1.55; 95% CI, 0.61-3.95). A qualitative analysis of the complications of surgery and IVF showed a partial or complete lack of information on these issues as well as high heterogeneity in the reported data. None of these studies is an RCT; therefore, all have a high risk of selection and allocation bias, except for 1 study that statistically controlled the latter risk by using propensity scores. Funnel plots showed no asymmetry. Conclusion: The results were very consistent for all the studied outcomes, showing a statistically significant benefit for surgery before IVF, although they should be confirmed with RCTs. In addition to the reproductive outcomes, safety data should also be reported to obtain a complete assessment of the risks and benefits.
Colorectal endometriosis, Assisted reproduction, Infertility, Reproductive outcomes
  1. Abrao MS, 2015, HUM REPROD UPDATE, V21, P329, DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmv003
  2. Alshehre SM, 2021, ARCH GYNECOL OBSTET, V303, P3, DOI 10.1007/s00404-020-05796-9
  3. [Anonymous], 2014, REV MAN REVMAN
  4. Ballester M, 2017, EUR J OBSTET GYN R B, V209, P95, DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.02.020
  5. Ballester M, 2012, HUM REPROD, V27, P1043, DOI 10.1093/humrep/des012
  6. Ballester M, 2012, FERTIL STERIL, V97, P367, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.022
  7. Barri PN, 2010, REPROD BIOMED ONLINE, V21, P179, DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.04.026
  8. Bendifallah S, 2018, SURG ENDOSC, V32, P2003, DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5896-z
  9. Bendifallah S, 2017, FERTIL STERIL, V108, P525, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.002
  10. Bianchi PHM, 2009, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V16, P174, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.12.009
  11. Capelle A, 2015, GYNECOL OBSTET FERTI, V43, P109, DOI 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2014.12.003
  12. Centini G, 2016, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V23, P113, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.09.015
  13. Chapron C, 2019, NAT REV ENDOCRINOL, V15, P666, DOI 10.1038/s41574-019-0245-z
  14. Cohen J, 2014, Minerva Ginecol, V66, P575
  15. Darai E, 2017, EUR J OBSTET GYN R B, V209, P86, DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.05.024
  16. de Ziegler D, 2010, LANCET, V376, P730, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60490-4
  17. Donnez J, 2010, HUM REPROD, V25, P1949, DOI 10.1093/humrep/deq135
  18. Dubernard G, 2006, HUM REPROD, V21, P1243, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dei491
  19. Duepree HJ, 2002, J AM COLL SURGEONS, V195, P754, DOI 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01341-8
  20. Dunselman GAJ, 2014, HUM REPROD, V29, P400, DOI 10.1093/humrep/det457
  21. Giudice LC, 2010, NEW ENGL J MED, V362, P2389, DOI 10.1056/NEJMcp1000274
  22. Guerriero S, 2018, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V51, P586, DOI 10.1002/uog.18961
  23. Gupta S, 2008, FERTIL STERIL, V90, P247, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.093
  24. Hamdan M, 2015, HUM REPROD UPDATE, V21, P809, DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmv035
  25. Higgins J.P.T., 2011, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Version 5.1.0, DOI 10.1002/9780470712184
  26. Hudelist G, 2018, ACTA OBSTET GYN SCAN, V97, P1438, DOI 10.1111/aogs.13436
  27. Iversen ML, 2017, ACTA OBSTET GYN SCAN, V96, P688, DOI 10.1111/aogs.13152
  28. Johnson N, 2010, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD002125.pub3
  29. Johnson NP, 2013, HUM REPROD, V28, P1552, DOI 10.1093/humrep/det050
  30. Keckstein J, 2005, MINIM INVASIV THER, V14, P160, DOI 10.1080/14017430510035916
  31. Leone Roberti Maggiore U, 2018, FERTIL STERIL, V109, P942
  32. Macer ML, 2012, OBSTET GYN CLIN N AM, V39, P535, DOI 10.1016/j.ogc.2012.10.002
  33. Maggiore ULR, 2017, FERTIL STERIL, V108, P895, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.035
  34. Maggiore ULR, 2017, FERTIL STERIL, V107, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.02.106
  35. Maignien C, 2017, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V216, DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.1042
  36. Mattos LA, 2019, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V26, P1016, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.02.017
  37. Meuleman C, 2014, ANN SURG, V259, P522, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828dfc5c
  38. Moher D, 2009, ANN INTERN MED, V151, pW264
  39. Mounsambote L, 2017, GYNECOL OBST FERT SE, V45, P15, DOI 10.1016/j.gofs.2016.12.008
  40. Netter A, 2019, HUM REPROD, V34, P2144, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dez188
  41. Practice Comm Amer Soc Reprod Med, 2012, FERTIL STERIL, V98, P591, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.031
  42. Roman H, 2017, J GYNECOL OBSTET HUM, V46, P159, DOI 10.1016/j.jogoh.2016.09.004
  43. Roman H, 2018, HUM REPROD, V33, P1669, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dey146
  44. Roman H, 2018, HUM REPROD, V33, P47, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dex336
  45. Roman H, 2015, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V22, P1059, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.05.023
  46. Rubod C, 2019, J GYNECOL OBSTET HUM, V48, P235, DOI 10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.06.002
  47. Ruffo G, 2010, SURG ENDOSC, V24, P63, DOI 10.1007/s00464-009-0517-0
  48. Seyer-Hansen M, 2018, ACTA OBSTET GYN SCAN, V97, P47, DOI 10.1111/aogs.13253
  49. Somigliana E, 2004, HUM REPROD, V19, P168, DOI 10.1093/humrep/deg513
  50. Soriano D, 2016, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V23, P781, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.03.015
  51. Stepniewska A, 2009, HUM REPROD, V24, P1619, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dep083
  52. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2017, END DIAGN MAN
  53. Uccella S, 2019, AM J PERINAT, V36, pS91, DOI 10.1055/s-0039-1692130
  54. Vercellini P, 2018, HUM REPROD, V33, P1205, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dey104
  55. Vercellini P, 2012, REPROD BIOMED ONLINE, V24, P389, DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.01.003
  56. Wu CQ, 2019, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V26, P299, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.08.029