Reproductive Surgery · Ovarian Surgery

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome

Bordewijk EM, Ng KYB, Rakic L, Mol BWJ, Brown J, Crawford TJ, van Wely M

Published February 11, 2020 The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2(2), CD001122
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD001122.pub5 PMID 32048270 PMC PMC7013239
Read our synopsis

RRM Academy Synopsis

Ovarian drilling may slightly lower live birth versus medication

A Cochrane review of 38 trials found ovarian drilling surgery may slightly lower live birth versus medication alone. Drilling was tested with or without added medication. The 3326 women had PCOS (now also called PMOS, polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome). They did not ovulate on clomiphene citrate. Drilling probably lowers multiple pregnancy.

Key Findings

  • Live birth: drilling with or without medication versus medication alone gave an odds ratio of 0.71 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.92), from 9 studies and 1015 women. Low-quality evidence.
  • Among 4 trials at low risk of selection bias (415 women), the live birth odds ratio was 0.90 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.36), so any difference stayed uncertain.
  • Multiple pregnancy: Peto odds ratio 0.34 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.66) in 14 studies, 1161 women, moderate quality. Against a 5.0% risk on medication alone, drilling is estimated at 0.9% to 3.4%.
  • Clinical pregnancy: 21 studies with 2016 women, odds ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.03). Miscarriage: 19 studies with 1909 women, odds ratio 1.11 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.59). Low-quality evidence.
  • Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) was very rare. 8 studies with 722 women gave a Peto odds ratio of 0.25 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.91), so drilling may reduce it. Low-quality evidence.

Interpretation

The review pools randomized trials, which allows a direct comparison of the two routes. The evidence ranged from very low to moderate quality. In 4 trials at low risk of selection bias, any live birth difference stayed uncertain. Only 23 of the 38 trials explained randomization adequately, and no trial blinded participants. More than half of the trials did not report live birth. Every woman had clomiphene citrate resistance. The authors found no specific data on surgical risks or long-term ovarian function. Comparisons of one-ovary versus two-ovary drilling and of other drilling techniques had too little data for a conclusion.

RRM Context

Restorative reproductive medicine asks why ovulation fails before choosing how to trigger it. Several included trials required a normal semen analysis in the partner. The review reports outcomes of triggering ovulation. It gives no data on what drives the missed ovulation.

Abstract

Background

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance.

Search Methods

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

Selection Criteria

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD.

Data Collection and Analysis

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes.

Main Results

This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I2 = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I2 = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I2 = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose.

Authors' Conclusions

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Reproductive Surgery › Ovarian Surgery › Ovarian Reserve Preservation · Infertility › Ovulation Induction › Clomiphene Citrate · Menstrual Cycle › Cycle Disorders › Ovulatory Disturbances
Ben W Mol, Julie Brown, Madelon van Wely
Benjamin Mol, B Mol, J Brown, M Wely
PMID 32048270 32048270 DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD001122.pub5 10.1002/14651858.CD001122.pub5 Bordewijk et al. 2020, Bordewijk 2020

Cite this article

Bordewijk, E. M., Ng, K. Y. B., Rakic, L., Mol, B. W. J., Brown, J., Crawford, T. J., & van Wely, M. (2020). Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2(2), CD001122. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001122.pub5