Cargando…

Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of any anti-adhesion barrier gel used after operative hysteroscopy for treating infertility associated with uterine cavity abnormalities. Gynecologists might use any barrier gel following operative hysteroscopy in infertile women for decreasing de novo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bosteels, Jan, Weyers, Steven, Mol, Ben W. J., D’Hooghe, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4003345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24795547
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-014-0832-x
_version_ 1782313839035940864
author Bosteels, Jan
Weyers, Steven
Mol, Ben W. J.
D’Hooghe, Thomas
author_facet Bosteels, Jan
Weyers, Steven
Mol, Ben W. J.
D’Hooghe, Thomas
author_sort Bosteels, Jan
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to assess the effects of any anti-adhesion barrier gel used after operative hysteroscopy for treating infertility associated with uterine cavity abnormalities. Gynecologists might use any barrier gel following operative hysteroscopy in infertile women for decreasing de novo adhesion formation; the use of any barrier gel is associated with less severe de novo adhesions and lower mean adhesion scores. Nevertheless, infertile women should be counseled that there is at the present no evidence for higher live birth or pregnancy rates. There is a lack of data for the outcome miscarriage. Preclinical studies suggest that the use of biodegradable surgical barriers may decrease postsurgical adhesion formation. Observational studies in the human report conflicting results. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialized Register (10 April 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to 4 April 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 4 April 2013), and other electronic databases of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (from 1 January 1992 to 13 April 2013); we also contacted experts in the field. We included the randomized comparisons between any anti-adhesion barrier gel versus another barrier gel, placebo, or no adjunctive therapy following operative hysteroscopy. Primary outcomes were live birth rates and de novo adhesion formation at second-look hysteroscopy. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage rates, mean adhesion scores, and severity of adhesions at second-look hysteroscopy. Two authors independently assessed eligible studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information or other clarification. Five trials met the inclusion criteria. There is no evidence for an effect favoring the use of any barrier gel following operative hysteroscopy for the key outcomes of live birth or clinical pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 3.0, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 26, P = 0.32, one study, 30 women, very low quality evidence); there were no data on the outcome miscarriage. The use of any gel following operative hysteroscopy decreases the incidence of de novo adhesions at second-look hysteroscopy at 1 to 3 months (RR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.45 to 0.93, P = 0.02, five studies, 372 women, very low quality evidence). The number needed to treat to benefit is 9 (95 % CI 5 to 33). The use of auto-cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy for fibroids, endometrial polyps, or uterine septa is associated with a lower mean adhesion score at second-look hysteroscopy at 3 months (mean difference (MD) −1.44, 95 % CI −1.83 to −1.05, P < 0.00001, one study, 24 women; this benefit is even larger in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy for intrauterine adhesions(MD −3.30, 95 % CI −3.43 to −3.17, P < 0.00001, one study, 19 women). After using any gel following operative hysteroscopy, there are more American Fertility Society 1988 stage I (mild) adhesions (RR 2.81, 95 % CI 1.13 to 7.01, P = 0.03, four studies, 79 women). The number needed to treat to benefit is 2 (95 % CI 1 to 4). Similarly there are less’ moderate or severe adhesions’ at second-look hysteroscopy (RR 0.25, 95 % CI 0.10 to 0.67, P = 0.006, four studies, 79 women). The number needed to treat to benefit is 2 (95 % CI 1 to 4) (all very low quality evidence). There are some concerns for the non-methodological quality. Only two trials included infertile women; in the remaining three studies, it is not clear whether and how many participants suffered from infertility. Therefore, the applicability of the findings of the included studies to the target population under study should be questioned. Moreover, only one small trial studied the effects of anti-adhesion barrier gels for the key outcome of pregnancy; the length of follow-up was, however, not specified. More well-designed and adequately powered randomized studies are needed to assess whether the use of any anti-adhesion gel affects the key reproductive outcomes in a target population of infertile women.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4003345
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40033452014-04-30 Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis Bosteels, Jan Weyers, Steven Mol, Ben W. J. D’Hooghe, Thomas Gynecol Surg Review Article The aim of this study was to assess the effects of any anti-adhesion barrier gel used after operative hysteroscopy for treating infertility associated with uterine cavity abnormalities. Gynecologists might use any barrier gel following operative hysteroscopy in infertile women for decreasing de novo adhesion formation; the use of any barrier gel is associated with less severe de novo adhesions and lower mean adhesion scores. Nevertheless, infertile women should be counseled that there is at the present no evidence for higher live birth or pregnancy rates. There is a lack of data for the outcome miscarriage. Preclinical studies suggest that the use of biodegradable surgical barriers may decrease postsurgical adhesion formation. Observational studies in the human report conflicting results. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialized Register (10 April 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to 4 April 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 4 April 2013), and other electronic databases of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (from 1 January 1992 to 13 April 2013); we also contacted experts in the field. We included the randomized comparisons between any anti-adhesion barrier gel versus another barrier gel, placebo, or no adjunctive therapy following operative hysteroscopy. Primary outcomes were live birth rates and de novo adhesion formation at second-look hysteroscopy. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage rates, mean adhesion scores, and severity of adhesions at second-look hysteroscopy. Two authors independently assessed eligible studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information or other clarification. Five trials met the inclusion criteria. There is no evidence for an effect favoring the use of any barrier gel following operative hysteroscopy for the key outcomes of live birth or clinical pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 3.0, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 26, P = 0.32, one study, 30 women, very low quality evidence); there were no data on the outcome miscarriage. The use of any gel following operative hysteroscopy decreases the incidence of de novo adhesions at second-look hysteroscopy at 1 to 3 months (RR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.45 to 0.93, P = 0.02, five studies, 372 women, very low quality evidence). The number needed to treat to benefit is 9 (95 % CI 5 to 33). The use of auto-cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy for fibroids, endometrial polyps, or uterine septa is associated with a lower mean adhesion score at second-look hysteroscopy at 3 months (mean difference (MD) −1.44, 95 % CI −1.83 to −1.05, P < 0.00001, one study, 24 women; this benefit is even larger in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy for intrauterine adhesions(MD −3.30, 95 % CI −3.43 to −3.17, P < 0.00001, one study, 19 women). After using any gel following operative hysteroscopy, there are more American Fertility Society 1988 stage I (mild) adhesions (RR 2.81, 95 % CI 1.13 to 7.01, P = 0.03, four studies, 79 women). The number needed to treat to benefit is 2 (95 % CI 1 to 4). Similarly there are less’ moderate or severe adhesions’ at second-look hysteroscopy (RR 0.25, 95 % CI 0.10 to 0.67, P = 0.006, four studies, 79 women). The number needed to treat to benefit is 2 (95 % CI 1 to 4) (all very low quality evidence). There are some concerns for the non-methodological quality. Only two trials included infertile women; in the remaining three studies, it is not clear whether and how many participants suffered from infertility. Therefore, the applicability of the findings of the included studies to the target population under study should be questioned. Moreover, only one small trial studied the effects of anti-adhesion barrier gels for the key outcome of pregnancy; the length of follow-up was, however, not specified. More well-designed and adequately powered randomized studies are needed to assess whether the use of any anti-adhesion gel affects the key reproductive outcomes in a target population of infertile women. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014-03-14 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4003345/ /pubmed/24795547 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-014-0832-x Text en © The Author(s) 2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Bosteels, Jan
Weyers, Steven
Mol, Ben W. J.
D’Hooghe, Thomas
Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4003345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24795547
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-014-0832-x
work_keys_str_mv AT bosteelsjan antiadhesionbarriergelsfollowingoperativehysteroscopyfortreatingfemaleinfertilityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT weyerssteven antiadhesionbarriergelsfollowingoperativehysteroscopyfortreatingfemaleinfertilityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT molbenwj antiadhesionbarriergelsfollowingoperativehysteroscopyfortreatingfemaleinfertilityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dhooghethomas antiadhesionbarriergelsfollowingoperativehysteroscopyfortreatingfemaleinfertilityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis