Unilateral or bilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling in polycystic ovary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized trials
- 146 Downloads
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of unilateral vs. bilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling (ULOD vs. BLOD) for improving fertility outcomes in infertile women with clomiphene-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) as well as its effect on ovarian reserve.
Searches were conducted on PubMed, ScienceDirect, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases from January 1984 to January 2017. Only randomized trials comparing ULOD with BLOD were included. The PRISMA Statement was followed. Main outcomes were ovulation and clinical pregnancy rates per woman randomized. Secondary outcomes were; live birth and miscarriage rates as well as postoperative serum anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) concentration and antral follicle count (AFC). Quality assessment was performed by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.
Eight eligible trials (484 women) were analyzed. No significant difference was found in rates of ovulation (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47–1.11), clinical pregnancy (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.22–1.41), live birth (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.28–2.10), or miscarriage (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.33–2.84) when ULOD was compared with BLOD. The reduction in AMH was comparable between the two procedures (MD 0.64 ng/ml; 95% CI − 0.08 to 1.36). A significantly higher AFC at 6-month follow-up was found with dose-adjusted ULOD (MD 2.20; 95% CI 1.01–3.39).
After carefully weighing up the well-known benefits of BLOD against a potential risk to ovarian reserve, clinicians could be advised to offer the fixed-dose ULOD to their infertile patients with clomiphene-resistant PCOS. This is concordant with the “primum non nocere” principal if LOD will be envisaged.
KeywordsUnilateral ovarian drilling Unilateral ovarian diathermy Polycystic ovary syndrome PCOS Ovulation and pregnancy
All authors contributed to the development of the manuscript and all authors consented to its submission and publication. Specific contributions are as follows; HAH: design and institution of the study protocol, collection, and analysis of data, drafting, review, and final preparation of the article, and approval of the final version. OF: design and institution of the study protocol, collection and analysis of data, drafting, review and final preparation of the article, and approval of the final version. MELR: institution of the study protocol, analysis of data, review, and approval of the final version.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS Consensus Workshop Group (2004) Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 81:19–25Google Scholar
- 9.National collaborating centre for women’s and children’s health/national institute for clinical excellence (2013) Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. In: Clinical guideline no. 156. RCOG Press, London. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156
- 17.Al-Mizyen E, Grudzinskas JG (2007) Ultrasonographic observations following unilateral and bilateral laparoscopic ovarian diathermy in infertile women with clomiphene citrate resistant polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Middle East Fertil Soc J 12:207–212Google Scholar
- 24.Zawadski JK, Dunaif A (1992) Diagnostic criteria for polycystic ovary syndrome: towards a rational approach. In: Dunaif A, Givens JR, Haseltine FP, Merriam GE (eds) Polycystic ovary syndrome; current issues in endocrinology and metabolism. Blackwell Scientific Inc, Boston, pp 377–384Google Scholar
- 25.Azziz R, Carmina E, Dewailly D et al (2009) Task force on the phenotype of the polycystic ovary syndrome of the androgen excess and PCOS Society. The androgen excess and PCOS Society criteria for the polycystic ovary syndrome: the complete task force report. Fertil Steril 91:456–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. http://handbook.cochrane.org
- 31.Bhide P, Dilgil M, Gudi A, Shah A, Akwaa C, Homburg R (2015) Each small antral follicle in ovaries of women with polycystic ovary syndrome produces more antimüllerian hormone than its counterpart in a normal ovary: an observational cross-sectional study. Fertil Steril 103:537–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Farquhar C, Brown J, Marjoribanks J (2012) Laparoscopic drilling by diathermy or laser for ovulation induction in anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD001122Google Scholar
- 35.Al-Mizyen E, Grudzinskas JG (2000) Unilateral versus bilateral laparoscopic ovarian diathermy in the management of infertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. In: Abstracts of the 16th annual meeting of the ESHRE, p 262Google Scholar
- 38.Abu Hashim H (2013) Alternatives to laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in clomiphene resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an evidence based approach. In: De Lange K, Deguire E (eds) Ovulation: detection, signs/symptoms and outcomes. Nova Science Publishers Inc., Hauppauge, pp 97–115Google Scholar
- 45.Laganà AS, Rossetti P, Sapia F et al (2017) Evidence-based and patient-oriented inositol treatment in polycystic ovary syndrome: changing the perspective of the disease. Int J Endocrinol Metab 22(15):e43695Google Scholar
- 54.Giampaolino P, Morra I, Della Corte L et al (2017) Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels after ovarian drilling for the second-line treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome: a pilot-randomized study comparing laparoscopy and transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy. Gynecol Endocrinol 33:26–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar