Fertility and sterility, 122(4), 631-632, 2024
Abstract not indexed. Read at publisher
Topics
endometriosis pregnancy outcomes complications, endometriosis adverse obstetric outcomes review, Farland endometriosis pregnancy complications, endometriosis placenta previa preterm birth risk, endometriosis fertility pregnancy adverse events, endometriosis maternal health pregnancy complications, Schliep Pollack endometriosis reproductive outcomes, endometriosis obstetric risk editorial commentary
PMID 39053871 39053871 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.07.025 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.07.025
Cite this article
Farland, L. V., Pollack, A. Z., & Schliep, K. C. (2024). Endometriosis and pregnancy outcomes - another piece to a complex puzzle. Fertility and sterility, 122(4), 631-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.07.025
Farland LV, Pollack AZ, Schliep KC. Endometriosis and pregnancy outcomes - another piece to a complex puzzle. Fertil Steril. 2024;122(4):631-632. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.07.025
Farland, L. V., et al. "Endometriosis and pregnancy outcomes - another piece to a complex puzzle." Fertility and sterility, vol. 122, no. 4, 2024, pp. 631-632.
Related articles
EndometriosisObstetric ComplicationsEndometriosis-Related RisksPopulation-Based Study
Association between endometriosis and pregnancy complications: A nationwide retrospective analysis (2000-2021)
Hsu JZ et al., 2025·Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
Endometriosis is a chronic gynaecological condition affecting reproductive-aged women. It has been associated with infertility and potential risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes, although population-level evidence remains limited. This retrospective cohort study, including 147,950 pregnant women aged 20-45 years, used nationwide population-based data to compare the outcomes between women with (n = 11,400) and without (n = 136,550) endometriosis between 2000 and 2021. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities and pregnancy outcomes were compared between the groups. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to calculate adjusted relative risks (aRR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for various pregnancy outcomes, and subgroup analyses were conducted by maternal age and infertility status. Among 147,950 pregnancies, women with endometriosis [mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 32.38 ± 4.51 years] had higher socio-economic status, more comorbidities, and more surgical history compared with women without endometriosis (mean ± SD age 30.06 ± 4.96 years). Women with endometriosis had increased risk of miscarriage (aRR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.03-1.24), preterm birth (aRR 1.31, 95 % CI 1.26-1.37), premature rupture of membranes (aRR 1.11, 95 % CI 1.06-1.16), placenta previa (aRR 1.63, 95 % CI 1.45-1.84), urinary tract infection (aRR 1.44, 95 % CI 1.31-1.59), and caesarean section (aRR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.11-1.16). Subgroup analysis revealed that risk of miscarriage was only higher in women aged 35-45 years and women without infertility. Risks of preterm birth, placenta previa and caesarean section were elevated across all subgroups, suggesting that endometriosis contributes independently to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Endometriosis is an independent risk factor for several pregnancy complications, supporting the need for tailored prenatal care and closer monitoring of affected women to improve maternal outcomes.
Research
Recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2026·Fertility and Sterility
Current strategies for the assessment and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss are discussed. This replaces the previous document, titled, "Evaluation and treatment a committee opinion," last published in 2012.
Research
Optimization of conception with intercourse for women with infertility
Boedeker D et al., 2026·Fertility and sterility
This narrative review examines the evidence for medical optimization of inflammatory conditions, vitamin deficiencies, endocrine disorders, immune dysregulation, oligo-ovulation, and luteal phase factors to improve fertility outcomes in women attempting to conceive through natural or timed intercourse. Overall, there is a paucity of data with respect to these categories among patients pursuing timed intercourse, precluding our ability to draw strong recommendations. However, there is strong evidence supporting treatment of endocrine disorders, specifically overt thyroid dysfunction and hyperprolactinemia, as well as oligo-ovulation. Conversely, treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism is not recommended. The current data are insufficient to support empiric use of antiinflammatory medications, corticosteroids, thyroid hormones, or vitamins or supplements to improve chances of pregnancy in a general infertility population.
Research
The effectiveness and safety of restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) compared to assisted reproductive technology or medically unassisted conception: a systematic review
Ganci D et al., 2026·Fertility and Sterility
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.