Farquhar Cindy, Brown Julie, Marjoribanks Jane
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13(6):CD001122. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001122.pub4.
Surgical ovarian wedge resection was the first established treatment for women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) but was largely abandoned both due to the risk of postsurgical adhesions and the introduction of medical ovulation induction. However, women with PCOS who are treated with medical ovulation induction, with drugs such as gonadotrophins, often have an over-production of follicles which may result in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies. Moreover, gonadotrophins, though effective, are costly and time-consuming and their use requires intensive monitoring. Surgical therapy with laparoscopic ovarian 'drilling' (LOD) may avoid or reduce the need for medical ovulation induction, or may facilitate its usefulness. The procedure can be done on an outpatient basis with less trauma and fewer postoperative adhesions than with traditional surgical approaches. Many uncontrolled observational studies have claimed that ovarian drilling is followed, at least temporarily, by a high rate of spontaneous ovulation and conception, or that subsequent medical ovulation induction becomes easier.
To determine the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic ovarian drilling compared with ovulation induction for subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS.
We used the search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) to search the MDSG Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The keywords included polycystic ovary syndrome, laparoscopic ovarian drilling, electrocautery and diathermy. Searches were conducted in September 2011, and a further search of the MDSG Trials Register was made on 14 May 2012.
We included randomised controlled trials of subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS who undertook laparoscopic ovarian drilling in order to induce ovulation.
This is an update of a previously updated review. There were nine RCTs in the previous version; an additional 16 trials were added in the current (2012) update. All trials were assessed for quality. The primary outcomes were live birth and multiple pregnancy. The secondary outcomes were rate of miscarriage, ovulation and pregnancy rates, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), quality of life and cost.
Nine trials, including 1210 women, reported on the primary outcome of live birth rate per couple. Live births were reported in 34% of women in the LOD groups and 38% in other medical treatment groups. There were five different comparisons with LOD and there was no evidence of a difference in live births when compared with clomiphene citrate + tamoxifen (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.53; P = 0.51, 1 trial, n = 150), gonadotrophins (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.59; P = 0.89, I(2) = 0%, 2 trials, n = 318), aromatase inhibitors (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; P = 0.44, I(2) = 0%, 2 trials, n = 407) or clomiphene citrate (OR 1.21; 95%CI 0.64 to 2.32; 1 trial, n=176, P= 0.05). There was evidence of significantly fewer live births following LOD compared with clomiphene citrate + metformin (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.82; P = 0.01, I(2) = 78%, 2 trials, n = 159); the high heterogeneity in this subgroup could not be explained by population differences or differences in quality of the trials.Thirteen trials reported on multiple pregnancies (n= 1305 women). There were no cases of multiple pregnancies in either group for clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors compared with LOD. The rate of multiple pregnancies was significantly lower in the LOD group compared with trials using gonadotrophins (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.52; P=0.004, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, n = 166).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a significant difference in rates of clinical pregnancy, live birth or miscarriage in women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS undergoing LOD compared to other medical treatments. The reduction in multiple pregnancy rates in women undergoing LOD makes this option attractive. However, there are ongoing concerns about the long-term effects of LOD on ovarian function.
手术卵巢楔形切除术是最早确立的用于治疗无排卵性多囊卵巢综合征(PCOS)女性的方法,但由于术后粘连风险以及药物促排卵方法的出现,该方法已基本被弃用。然而,使用促性腺激素等药物进行药物促排卵治疗的PCOS女性,往往会出现卵泡过度生成的情况,这可能导致卵巢过度刺激综合征和多胎妊娠。此外,促性腺激素虽然有效,但成本高、耗时,且使用时需要密切监测。腹腔镜卵巢“打孔”(LOD)手术治疗可能避免或减少药物促排卵的需求,或提高其有效性。该手术可在门诊进行,与传统手术方法相比,创伤更小,术后粘连更少。许多非对照观察性研究称,卵巢打孔术后至少短期内会有较高的自然排卵和受孕率,或者后续的药物促排卵会更容易。
确定与促排卵相比,腹腔镜卵巢打孔术治疗克罗米芬抵抗性PCOS不育女性的有效性和安全性。
我们采用月经紊乱与不育症研究组(MDSG)的检索策略,检索MDSG试验注册库、Cochrane系统评价数据库、医学期刊数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)和心理学文摘数据库(PsycINFO)。关键词包括多囊卵巢综合征、腹腔镜卵巢打孔、电灼术和透热疗法。检索于2011年9月进行,并于2012年5月14日对MDSG试验注册库进行了进一步检索。
我们纳入了对克罗米芬抵抗性PCOS不育女性进行腹腔镜卵巢打孔以诱导排卵的随机对照试验。
这是对之前更新综述的更新。上一版有9项随机对照试验;在本次(2012年)更新中增加了16项试验。所有试验均进行了质量评估。主要结局是活产和多胎妊娠。次要结局是流产率、排卵和妊娠率、卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)、生活质量和成本。
9项试验,共1210名女性,报告了每对夫妇的活产率这一主要结局。LOD组34%的女性报告有活产,其他药物治疗组为38%。与克罗米芬 + 他莫昔芬(OR 0.81;95%CI 0.42至1.53;P = 0.51,1项试验,n = 150)、促性腺激素(OR 0.