Rikken J F W, Verhorstert K W J, Emanuel M H, Bongers M Y, Spinder T, Kuchenbecker W K H, Jansen F W, van der Steeg J W, Janssen C A H, Kapiteijn K, Schols W A, Torrenga B, Torrance H L, Verhoeve H R, Huirne J A F, Hoek A, Nieboer T E, van Rooij I A J, Clark T J, Robinson L, Stephenson M D, Mol B W J, van der Veen F, van Wely M, Goddijn M
Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Location AMC and VUMC, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Hum Reprod. 2020 Jul 1;35(7):1578-1588. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez284.
Does septum resection improve reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus?
In women with a septate uterus, septum resection does not increase live birth rate nor does it decrease the rates of pregnancy loss or preterm birth, compared with expectant management.
The septate uterus is the most common uterine anomaly with an estimated prevalence of 0.2-2.3% in women of reproductive age, depending on the classification system. The definition of the septate uterus has been a long-lasting and ongoing subject of debate, and currently two classification systems are used worldwide. Women with a septate uterus may be at increased risk of subfertility, pregnancy loss, preterm birth and foetal malpresentation. Based on low quality evidence, current guidelines recommend removal of the intrauterine septum or, more cautiously, state that the procedure should be evaluated in future studies.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an international multicentre cohort study in which we identified women mainly retrospectively by searching in electronic patient files, medical records and databases within the time frame of January 2000 until August 2018. Searching of the databases, files and records took place between January 2016 and July 2018. By doing so, we collected data on 257 women with a septate uterus in 21 centres in the Netherlands, USA and UK.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included women with a septate uterus, defined by the treating physician, according to the classification system at that time. The women were ascertained among those with a history of subfertility, pregnancy loss, preterm birth or foetal malpresentation or during a routine diagnostic procedure. Allocation to septum resection or expectant management was dependent on the reproductive history and severity of the disease. We excluded women who did not have a wish to conceive at time of diagnosis. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included pregnancy loss, preterm birth and foetal malpresentation. All conceptions during follow-up were registered but for the comparative analyses, only the first live birth or ongoing pregnancy was included. To evaluate differences in live birth and ongoing pregnancy, we used Cox proportional regression to calculate hazard rates (HRs) and 95% CI. To evaluate differences in pregnancy loss, preterm birth and foetal malpresentation, we used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% CI. We adjusted all reproductive outcomes for possible confounders.
In total, 257 women were included in the cohort. Of these, 151 women underwent a septum resection and 106 women had expectant management. The median follow-up time was 46 months. During this time, live birth occurred in 80 women following a septum resection (53.0%) compared to 76 women following expectant management (71.7%) (HR 0.71 95% CI 0.49-1.02) and ongoing pregnancy occurred in 89 women who underwent septum resection (58.9%), compared to 80 women who had expectant management (75.5%) (HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.52-1.06)). Pregnancy loss occurred in 51 women who underwent septum resection (46.8%) versus 31 women who had expectant management (34.4%) (OR 1.58 (0.81-3.09)), while preterm birth occurred in 26 women who underwent septum resection (29.2%) versus 13 women who had expectant management (16.7%) (OR 1.26 (95% CI 0.52-3.04)) and foetal malpresentation occurred in 17 women who underwent septum resection (19.1%) versus 27 women who had expectant management (34.6%) (OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.24-1.33)).
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our retrospective study has a less robust design compared with a randomized controlled trial. Over the years, the ideas about the definition of the septate uterus has changed, but since the 257 women with a septate uterus included in this study had been diagnosed by their treating physician according to the leading classification system at that time, the data of this study reflect the daily practice of recent decades. Despite correcting for the most relevant patient characteristics, our estimates might not be free of residual confounding.
Our results suggest that septum resection, a procedure that is widely offered and associated with financial costs for society, healthcare systems or individuals, does not lead to improved reproductive outcomes compared to expectant management for women with a septate uterus. The results of this study need to be confirmed in randomized clinical trials.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): A travel for JFWR to Chicago was supported by the Jo Kolk Studyfund. Otherwise, no specific funding was received for this study. The Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre, Groningen, received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring Pharmaceutical Company unrelated to the present study. BWM reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Guerbet, other payment from Guerbet and grants from Merck, outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conficts of interest.
N/A.
对于有纵隔子宫的女性,纵隔切除术是否能改善生殖结局?
对于有纵隔子宫的女性,与期待治疗相比,纵隔切除术既不会提高活产率,也不会降低流产率或早产率。
纵隔子宫是最常见的子宫畸形,根据分类系统,在育龄女性中的估计患病率为0.2%-2.3%。纵隔子宫的定义一直是一个长期且持续争论的话题,目前全球使用两种分类系统。有纵隔子宫的女性可能存在生育力低下、流产、早产和胎位异常的风险增加。基于低质量证据,当前指南建议切除子宫纵隔,或者更谨慎地表示该手术应在未来研究中进行评估。
研究设计、规模、持续时间:我们进行了一项国际多中心队列研究,主要通过在2000年1月至2018年8月的时间范围内搜索电子患者档案、病历和数据库来回顾性地识别女性。数据库、档案和记录的搜索在2016年1月至2018年7月期间进行。通过这样做,我们收集了荷兰、美国和英国21个中心的257名有纵隔子宫的女性的数据。
参与者/材料、环境、方法:我们纳入了由治疗医生根据当时的分类系统定义的有纵隔子宫的女性。这些女性是在有生育力低下、流产、早产或胎位异常病史的人群中或在常规诊断过程中确定的。分配到纵隔切除术或期待治疗取决于生殖史和疾病严重程度。我们排除了诊断时没有生育意愿的女性。主要结局是活产。次要结局包括流产、早产和胎位异常。随访期间的所有妊娠均进行了登记,但为了进行比较分析,仅纳入首次活产或正在进行的妊娠。为了评估活产和正在进行的妊娠的差异,我们使用Cox比例回归来计算风险率(HRs)和95%置信区间。为了评估流产、早产和胎位异常的差异,我们使用逻辑回归来计算优势比(OR)及相应的95%置信区间。我们对所有生殖结局进行了可能混杂因素的调整。
队列中总共纳入了257名女性。其中,151名女性接受了纵隔切除术,106名女性接受了期待治疗。中位随访时间为46个月。在此期间,纵隔切除术后有80名女性活产(53.0%),而期待治疗后有76名女性活产(71.7%)(HR 0.71,95% CI 0.49-1.02);接受纵隔切除术的89名女性(58.9%)有正在进行的妊娠,而接受期待治疗的80名女性(75.5%)有正在进行的妊娠(HR 0.74(95% CI 0.52-1.06))。纵隔切除术后51名女性(46.8%)发生流产,而期待治疗的31名女性(34.4%)发生流产(OR 1.58(0.81-3.09)),纵隔切除术后26名女性(29.2%)发生早产,而期待治疗的13名女性(16.7%)发生早产(OR 1.26(95% CI 0.52-3.04)),纵隔切除术后17名女性(19.1%)发生胎位异常,而期待治疗的27名女性(34.6%)发生胎位异常(OR 0.56(95% CI 0.24-1.33))。
局限性、谨慎理由:与随机对照试验相比,我们的回顾性研究设计不够稳健。多年来,关于纵隔子宫定义的观念发生了变化,但由于本研究纳入的257名有纵隔子宫的女性是由其治疗医生根据当时的主要分类系统诊断的,本研究的数据反映了近几十年的日常实践。尽管对最相关的患者特征进行了校正,但我们的估计可能仍存在残余混杂。
我们的结果表明,纵隔切除术是一种广泛实施且会给社会、医疗系统或个人带来经济成本的手术,与期待治疗相比,对于有纵隔子宫的女性并不能改善生殖结局。本研究结果需要在随机临床试验中得到证实。
研究资金/利益冲突:JFWR前往芝加哥的差旅费由乔·科尔克研究基金提供支持。除此之外,本研究未获得特定资金。格罗宁根大学医学中心妇产科接受了辉凌制药公司提供的与本研究无关的无限制教育资助。BWM报告称在提交的工作之外,获得了NHMRC的资助、ObsEva的个人费用、默克的个人费用、Guerbet的个人费用、Guerbet的其他报酬以及默克的资助。其他作者声明无利益冲突。
无。