Advertisement

Pre-conception Risk Assessment: Gynaecological Problems

  • Tülay KarasuEmail author
  • Mostafa Metwally
Chapter

Abstract

Infertility has increased in Western societies; one in six couples will encounter problems with fertility. Infertility is defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after regular intercourse for 12 months. Women are delaying childbearing due to life style changes like completing higher education, following a career and seeking for financial independence. Increasingly, infertile couples are using assisted reproductive technology (ART) in order to achieve a pregnancy. This chapter aims to cover gynaecological pathologies like fibroids, polyps, uterine anomalies, endometriosis, adenomyosis and hydrosalpinx which can adversely influence reproductive outcome. Furthermore, the pathology, effect on fertility and pregnancy and evidence based management of those gynaecological conditions are described here.

Keywords

Fibroids Endometrial polyp Congenital uterine anomalies Intrauterine adhesions Endometriosis Adenomyosis Hydrosalpinx Fertility Pregnancy 

References

  1. 1.
    Cramer SF, Patel A. The frequency of uterine leiomyomas. Am J Clin Pathol. 1990;94(4):435–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roy KK, Singla S, Baruah J, Sharma JB, Kumar S, Singh N. Reproductive outcome following hysteroscopic myomectomy in patients with infertility and recurrent abortions. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;282(5):553–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shokeir T, El-Shafei M, Yousef H, Allam AF, Sadek E. Submucous myomas and their implications in the pregnancy rates of patients with otherwise unexplained primary infertility undergoing hysteroscopic myomectomy: a randomized matched control study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2):724–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farhi J, Ashkenazi J, Feldberg D, Dicker D, Orvieto R, Ben RZ. Effect of uterine leiomyomata on the results of in-vitro fertilization treatment. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(10):2576–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eldar-Geva T, Meagher S, Healy DL, MacLachlan V, Breheny S, Wood C. Effect of intramural, subserosal, and submucosal uterine fibroids on the outcome of assisted reproductive technology treatment. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(4):687–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Surrey ES, Minjarez DA, Stevens JM, Schoolcraft WB. Effect of myomectomy on the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(5):1473–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buttram Jr VC, Reiter RC. Uterine leiomyomata: etiology, symptomatology, and management. Fertil Steril. 1981;36(4):433–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donnez J, Jadoul P. What are the implications of myomas on fertility? A need for a debate? Hum Reprod. 2002;17(6):1424–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brosens I, Derwig I, Brosens J, Fusi L, Benagiano G, Pijnenborg R. The enigmatic uterine junctional zone: the missing link between reproductive disorders and major obstetrical disorders? Hum Reprod. 2010;25(3):569–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hart R, Khalaf Y, Yeong CT, Seed P, Taylor A, Braude P. A prospective controlled study of the effect of intramural uterine fibroids on the outcome of assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(11):2411–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khalaf Y, Ross C, El-Toukhy T, Hart R, Seed P, Braude P. The effect of small intramural uterine fibroids on the cumulative outcome of assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(10):2640–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oliveira FG, Abdelmassih VG, Diamond MP, Dozortsev D, Melo NR, Abdelmassih R. Impact of subserosal and intramural uterine fibroids that do not distort the endometrial cavity on the outcome of in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(3):582–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ng EH, Ho PC. Doppler ultrasound examination of uterine arteries on the day of oocyte retrieval in patients with uterine fibroids undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(3):765–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bozdag G, Esinler I, Boynukalin K, Aksu T, Gunalp S, Gurgan T. Single intramural leiomyoma with normal hysteroscopic findings does not affect ICSI-embryo transfer outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(2):276–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Surrey ES, Lietz AK, Schoolcraft WB. Impact of intramural leiomyomata in patients with a normal endometrial cavity on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycle outcome. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(2):405–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pritts EA. Fibroids and infertility: a systematic review of the evidence. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2001;56(8):483–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pritts EA, Parker WH, Olive DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4):1215–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sunkara SK, Khairy M, El-Toukhy T, Khalaf Y, Coomarasamy A. The effect of intramural fibroids without uterine cavity involvement on the outcome of IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(2):418–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Metwally M, Farquhar CM, Li TC. Is another meta-analysis on the effects of intramural fibroids on reproductive outcomes needed? Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(1):2–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Casini ML, Rossi F, Agostini R, Unfer V. Effects of the position of fibroids on fertility. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2006;22(2):106–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tamaya T, Fujimoto J, Okada H. Comparison of cellular levels of steroid receptors in uterine leiomyoma and myometrium. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1985;64(4):307–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lethaby A, Vollenhoven B, Sowter M. Pre-operative GnRH analogue therapy before hysterectomy or myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2):CD000547.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Donnez J, Tatarchuk TF, Bouchard P, Puscasiu L, Zakharenko NF, Ivanova T, et al. Ulipristal acetate versus placebo for fibroid treatment before surgery. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(5):409–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Donnez J, Tomaszewski J, Vazquez F, Bouchard P, Lemieszczuk B, Baro F, et al. Ulipristal acetate versus leuprolide acetate for uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(5):421–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Donnez J, Hudecek R, Donnez O, Matule D, Arhendt HJ, Zatik J, et al. Efficacy and safety of repeated use of ulipristal acetate in uterine fibroids. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(2):519–27.e3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Donnez J, Vazquez F, Tomaszewski J, Nouri K, Bouchard P, Fauser BC, et al. Long-term treatment of uterine fibroids with ulipristal acetate. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(6):1565–73.e1–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Freed MM, Spies JB. Uterine artery embolization for fibroids: a review of current outcomes. Semin Reprod Med. 2010;28(3):235–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hald K, Klow NE, Qvigstad E, Istre O. Laparoscopic occlusion compared with embolization of uterine vessels: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(1):20–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tulandi T, Sammour A, Valenti D, Child TJ, Seti L, Tan SL. Ovarian reserve after uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(1):197–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amato P, Roberts AC. Transient ovarian failure: a complication of uterine artery embolization. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(2):438–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Homer H, Saridogan E. Uterine artery embolization for fibroids is associated with an increased risk of miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):324–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Torre A, Paillusson B, Fain V, Labauge P, Pelage JP, Fauconnier A. Uterine artery embolization for severe symptomatic fibroids: effects on fertility and symptoms. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(3):490–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mara M, Kubinova K. Embolization of uterine fibroids from the point of view of the gynecologist: pros and cons. Int J Womens Health. 2014;6:623–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pron G, Mocarski E, Bennett J, Vilos G, Common A, Vanderburgh L, et al. Pregnancy after uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata: the Ontario multicenter trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(1):67–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mara M, Maskova J, Fucikova Z, Kuzel D, Belsan T, Sosna O. Midterm clinical and first reproductive results of a randomized controlled trial comparing uterine fibroid embolization and myomectomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31(1):73–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mara M, Horak P, Kubinova K, Dundr P, Belsan T, Kuzel D. Hysteroscopy after uterine fibroid embolization: evaluation of intrauterine findings in 127 patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2012;38(5):823–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gupta JK, Sinha A, Lumsden MA, Hickey M. Uterine artery embolization for symptomatic uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;12, CD005073.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rabinovici J, David M, Fukunishi H, Morita Y, Gostout BS, Stewart EA, et al. Pregnancy outcome after magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) for conservative treatment of uterine fibroids. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(1):199–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mais V, Ajossa S, Guerriero S, Mascia M, Solla E, Melis GB. Laparoscopic versus abdominal myomectomy: a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate benefits in early outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(2):654–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Metwally M, Cheong YC, Horne AW. Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11, CD003857.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shokeir TA, Shalan HM, El-Shafei MM. Significance of endometrial polyps detected hysteroscopically in eumenorrheic infertile women. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004;30(2):84–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    de Sa Rosa e de Silva AC, Rosa e Silva JC, Candido dos Reis FJ, Nogueira AA, Ferriani RA. Routine office hysteroscopy in the investigation of infertile couples before assisted reproduction. J Reprod Med. 2005;50(7):501–6.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kim MR, Kim YA, Jo MY, Hwang KJ, Ryu HS. High frequency of endometrial polyps in endometriosis. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003;10(1):46–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rackow BW, Jorgensen E, Taylor HS. Endometrial polyps affect uterine receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(8):2690–2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spiewankiewicz B, Stelmachow J, Sawicki W, Cendrowski K, Wypych P, Swiderska K. The effectiveness of hysteroscopic polypectomy in cases of female infertility. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2003;30(1):23–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Varasteh NN, Neuwirth RS, Levin B, Keltz MD. Pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic polypectomy and myomectomy in infertile women. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(2):168–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Perez-Medina T, Bajo-Arenas J, Salazar F, Redondo T, Sanfrutos L, Alvarez P, et al. Endometrial polyps and their implication in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(6):1632–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yanaihara A, Yorimitsu T, Motoyama H, Iwasaki S, Kawamura T. Location of endometrial polyp and pregnancy rate in infertility patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(1):180–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Afifi K, Anand S, Nallapeta S, Gelbaya TA. Management of endometrial polyps in subfertile women: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;151(2):117–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bosteels J, Kasius J, Weyers S, Broekmans FJ, Mol BW, D’Hooghe TM. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1, CD009461.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Isikoglu M, Berkkanoglu M, Senturk Z, Coetzee K, Ozgur K. Endometrial polyps smaller than 1.5 cm do not affect ICSI outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(2):199–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lass A, Williams G, Abusheikha N, Brinsden P. The effect of endometrial polyps on outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16(8):410–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stamatellos I, Apostolides A, Stamatopoulos P, Bontis J. Pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic polypectomy depending on the size or number of the polyps. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008;277(5):395–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Preutthipan S, Herabutya Y. Hysteroscopic polypectomy in 240 premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):705–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2032–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simon C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(10):2277–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Acien P. Incidence of Mullerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(7):1372–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Green LK, Harris RE. Uterine anomalies. Frequency of diagnosis and associated obstetric complications. Obstet Gynecol. 1976;47(4):427–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lavergne N, Aristizabal J, Zarka V, Erny R, Hedon B. Uterine anomalies and in vitro fertilization: what are the results? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;68(1–2):29–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Reuter KL, Daly DC, Cohen SM. Septate versus bicornuate uteri: errors in imaging diagnosis. Radiology. 1989;172(3):749–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. 1992;183(3):795–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital mullerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25(9):487–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pabuccu R, Gomel V. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with septate uterus and otherwise unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(6):1675–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mollo A, De Franciscis P, Colacurci N, Cobellis L, Perino A, Venezia R, et al. Hysteroscopic resection of the septum improves the pregnancy rate of women with unexplained infertility: a prospective controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2628–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fedele L, Bianchi S, Agnoli B, Tozzi L, Vignali M. Urinary tract anomalies associated with unicornuate uterus. J Urol. 1996;155(3):847–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Akar ME, Bayar D, Yildiz S, Ozel M, Yilmaz Z. Reproductive outcome of women with unicornuate uterus. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45(2):148–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7(2):161–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(4):371–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Patton PE. Anatomic uterine defects. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1994;37(3):705–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schenker JG, Margalioth EJ. Intrauterine adhesions: an updated appraisal. Fertil Steril. 1982;37(5):593–610.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Taskin O, Sadik S, Onoglu A, Gokdeniz R, Erturan E, Burak F, et al. Role of endometrial suppression on the frequency of intrauterine adhesions after resectoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2000;7(3):351–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Soares SR, Barbosa dos Reis MM, Camargos AF. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity diseases. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(2):406–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Salle B, Gaucherand P, de Saint Hilaire P, Rudigoz RC. Transvaginal sonohysterographic evaluation of intrauterine adhesions. J Clin Ultrasound. 1999;27(3):131–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(6):944–55.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Yu D, Wong YM, Cheong Y, Xia E, Li TC. Asherman syndrome – one century later. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(4):759–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Deans R, Abbott J. Review of intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(5):555–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    March CM. Management of Asherman’s syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(1):63–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Polishuk WZ, Weinstein D. The Soichet intrauterine device in the treatment of intrauterine adhesions. Acta Eur Fertil. 1976;7(3):215–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bosteels J, Weyers S, Mol BW, D’Hooghe T. Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Surg. 2014;11:113–27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kodaman PH, Arici A. Intra-uterine adhesions and fertility outcome: how to optimize success? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(3):207–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Capella-Allouc S, Morsad F, Rongieres-Bertrand C, Taylor S, Fernandez H. Hysteroscopic treatment of severe Asherman’s syndrome and subsequent fertility. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(5):1230–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Zikopoulos KA, Kolibianakis EM, Platteau P, de Munck L, Tournaye H, Devroey P, et al. Live delivery rates in subfertile women with Asherman’s syndrome after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis using the resectoscope or the Versapoint system. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8(6):720–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Roy KK, Baruah J, Sharma JB, Kumar S, Kachawa G, Singh N. Reproductive outcome following hysteroscopic adhesiolysis in patients with infertility due to Asherman’s syndrome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;281(2):355–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Yu D, Li TC, Xia E, Huang X, Liu Y, Peng X. Factors affecting reproductive outcome of hysteroscopic adhesiolysis for Asherman’s syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(3):715–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Giudice LC, Kao LC. Endometriosis. Lancet. 2004;364(9447):1789–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Buck Louis GM, Hediger ML, Peterson CM, Croughan M, Sundaram R, Stanford J, et al. Incidence of endometriosis by study population and diagnostic method: the ENDO study. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):360–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Sampson JA. Peritoneal endometriosis due to the menstrual dissemination of endometrial tissue into the peritoneal cavity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14:422–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Burney RO, Giudice LC. Pathogenesis and pathophysiology of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):511–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Stefansson H, Geirsson RT, Steinthorsdottir V, Jonsson H, Manolescu A, Kong A, et al. Genetic factors contribute to the risk of developing endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(3):555–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Nyholt DR, Low SK, Anderson CA, Painter JN, Uno S, Morris AP, et al. Genome-wide association meta-analysis identifies new endometriosis risk loci. Nat Genet. 2012;44(12):1355–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Koninckx PR, Martin DC. Deep endometriosis: a consequence of infiltration or retraction or possibly adenomyosis externa? Fertil Steril. 1992;58(5):924–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Nisolle M, Donnez J. Peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometriosis, and adenomyotic nodules of the rectovaginal septum are three different entities. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(4):585–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Redwine DB. Ovarian endometriosis: a marker for more extensive pelvic and intestinal disease. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(2):310–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Busacca M, Vignali M. Ovarian endometriosis: from pathogenesis to surgical treatment. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003;15(4):321–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    de Ziegler D, Borghese B, Chapron C. Endometriosis and infertility: pathophysiology and management. Lancet. 2010;376(9742):730–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Hughes E, Fedorkow D, Collins J, Vandekerckhove P. Ovulation suppression for endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD000155.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hughes E, Brown J, Collins JJ, Farquhar C, Fedorkow DM, Vandekerckhove P. Ovulation suppression for endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD000155.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Jacobson TZ, Duffy JM, Barlow D, Farquhar C, Koninckx PR, Olive D. Laparoscopic surgery for subfertility associated with endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD001398.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Duffy JM, Arambage K, Correa FJ, Olive D, Farquhar C, Garry R, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;4, CD011031.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Vercellini P, Fedele L, Aimi G, De Giorgi O, Consonni D, Crosignani PG. Reproductive performance, pain recurrence and disease relapse after conservative surgical treatment for endometriosis: the predictive value of the current classification system. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(10):2679–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Vercellini P, Somigliana E, Vigano P, Abbiati A, Barbara G, Crosignani PG. Surgery for endometriosis-associated infertility: a pragmatic approach. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(2):254–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Emmanuel KR, Davis C. Outcomes and treatment options in rectovaginal endometriosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17(4):399–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Tummon IS, Asher LJ, Martin JS, Tulandi T. Randomized controlled trial of superovulation and insemination for infertility associated with minimal or mild endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(1):8–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. 2013.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Barnhart K, Dunsmoor-Su R, Coutifaris C. Effect of endometriosis on in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(6):1148–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Harb HM, Gallos ID, Chu J, Harb M, Coomarasamy A. The effect of endometriosis on in vitro fertilisation outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2013;120(11):1308–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Sallam HN, Garcia-Velasco JA, Dias S, Arici A. Long-term pituitary down-regulation before in vitro fertilization (IVF) for women with endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(1):CD004635.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Benaglia L, Somigliana E, Vighi V, Ragni G, Vercellini P, Fedele L. Rate of severe ovarian damage following surgery for endometriomas. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(3):678–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Hwu YM, Wu FS, Li SH, Sun FJ, Lin MH, Lee RK. The impact of endometrioma and laparoscopic cystectomy on serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:80. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-9-80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Dunselman GA, Vermeulen N, Becker C, Calhaz-Jorge C, D’Hooghe T, De Bie B, et al. ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(3):400–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Hart RJ, Hickey M, Maouris P, Buckett W. Excisional surgery versus ablative surgery for ovarian endometriomata. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(2):CD004992.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Benaglia L, Bermejo A, Somigliana E, Faulisi S, Ragni G, Fedele L, et al. In vitro fertilization outcome in women with unoperated bilateral endometriomas. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(6):1714–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Benaglia L, Somigliana E, Vercellini P, Benedetti F, Iemmello R, Vighi V, et al. The impact of IVF procedures on endometriosis recurrence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;148(1):49–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    D’Hooghe TM, Denys B, Spiessens C, Meuleman C, Debrock S. Is the endometriosis recurrence rate increased after ovarian hyperstimulation? Fertil Steril. 2006;86(2):283–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Benaglia L, Somigliana E, Santi G, Scarduelli C, Ragni G, Fedele L. IVF and endometriosis-related symptom progression: insights from a prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(9):2368–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Vercellini P, Consonni D, Dridi D, Bracco B, Frattaruolo MP, Somigliana E. Uterine adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):964–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Tremellen KP, Russell P. The distribution of immune cells and macrophages in the endometrium of women with recurrent reproductive failure. II: adenomyosis and macrophages. J Reprod Immunol. 2012;93(1):58–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Brosens J, Verhoeven H, Campo R, Gianaroli L, Gordts S, Hazekamp J, et al. High endometrial aromatase P450 mRNA expression is associated with poor IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(2):352–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Kissler S, Hamscho N, Zangos S, Wiegratz I, Schlichter S, Menzel C, et al. Uterotubal transport disorder in adenomyosis and endometriosis – a cause for infertility. BJOG. 2006;113(8):902–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Campo S, Campo V, Benagiano G. Adenomyosis and infertility. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(1):35–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Benagiano G, Brosens I, Habiba M. Structural and molecular features of the endomyometrium in endometriosis and adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):386–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopier J, Antoine JM, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(11):2427–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Benagiano G, Habiba M, Brosens I. The pathophysiology of uterine adenomyosis: an update. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):572–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Bergeron C, Amant F, Ferenczy A. Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20(4):511–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Parazzini F, Vercellini P, Panazza S, Chatenoud L, Oldani S, Crosignani PG. Risk factors for adenomyosis. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(6):1275–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Costello MF, Lindsay K, McNally G. The effect of adenomyosis on in vitro fertilisation and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection treatment outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;158(2):229–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Thalluri V, Tremellen KP. Ultrasound diagnosed adenomyosis has a negative impact on successful implantation following GnRH antagonist IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(12):3487–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Vandromme J, Chasse E, Lejeune B, Van Rysselberge M, Delvigne A, Leroy F. Hydrosalpinges in in-vitro fertilization: an unfavourable prognostic feature. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(3):576–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Zeyneloglu HB, Arici A, Olive DL. Adverse effects of hydrosalpinx on pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(3):492–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Camus E, Poncelet C, Goffinet F, Wainer B, Merlet F, Nisand I, et al. Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(5):1243–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Strandell A, Lindhard A. Why does hydrosalpinx reduce fertility? The importance of hydrosalpinx fluid. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(5):1141–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Strandell A. The influence of hydrosalpinx on IVF and embryo transfer: a review. Hum Reprod Update. 2000;6(4):387–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenstrom U, Thorburn J. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: cumulative results after salpingectomy in a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(11):2403–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Johnson N, van Voorst S, Sowter MC, Strandell A, Mol BW. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(1):CD002125.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenstrom U, Thorburn J. Prophylactic salpingectomy does not impair the ovarian response in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(6):1135–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Bredkjaer HE, Ziebe S, Hamid B, Zhou Y, Loft A, Lindhard A, et al. Delivery rates after in-vitro fertilization following bilateral salpingectomy due to hydrosalpinges: a case control study. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(1):101–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Bosteels J, Weyers S, Mathieu C, Mol BW, D’Hooghe T. The effectiveness of reproductive surgery in the treatment of -female infertility: facts, views and vision. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2010;2(4):232–52.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Kerin JF, Cattanach S. Successful pregnancy outcome with the use of in vitro fertilization after Essure hysteroscopic sterilization. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(5):1212.e1–4.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Veersema S, Mijatovic V, Dreyer K, Schouten H, Schoot D, Emanuel MH, et al. Outcomes of pregnancies in women with hysteroscopically placed micro-inserts in situ. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(3):492–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Arora P, Arora RS, Cahill D. Essure((R)) for management of hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilisation-a systematic review and pooled analysis. BJOG. 2014;121(5):527–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Hammadieh N, Coomarasamy A, Ola B, Papaioannou S, Afnan M, Sharif K. Ultrasound-guided hydrosalpinx aspiration during oocyte collection improves pregnancy outcome in IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(5):1113–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Wamsteker K, De Block S. Diagnostic hysteroscopy: technique and documentation. In: Sutton C, Diamond M, editors. Endoscopic surgery for gynecologists. London: WB Saunders; 1998. p. 511–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jessop FertilitySheffield Teaching HospitalSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyThe Jessop Wing and Royal Hallamshire HospitalSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations