What is the impact of noncavity-distorting intramural fibroids on live birth rates in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles? We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and PUBMED from inception to May 2018. We included studies with women undergoing IVF treatment who had at least one noncavity-distorting intramural fibroid. The studies had to report one or more of the following outcomes: live birth rate as our primary outcome, and implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, or miscarriage rate as our secondary outcomes. We excluded studies where women also had submucosal fibroids or had undergone myomectomy. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. We included 15 studies with 5029 patients. Patients with noncavity-distorting intramural fibroids had 44% lower odds of live birth (estimated average odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.69) and 32% lower odds of clinical pregnancy (estimated average OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.56-0.83). Subgroup analysis of women with purely intramural fibroids showed significantly lower odds of live birth rates and clinic pregnancy rates. Analysis of prospective and retrospective studies shows that noncavity-distorting intramural fibroids have a significant adverse effect on live birth rates in women undergoing IVF. Further, well-designed prospective studies are needed to investigate whether removal of these fibroids improves IVF outcomes in this population.
Rojas HE et al., 2026·Journal of women's health (2002)
To characterize differences between individuals with and without mid-cycle pain in a registry cohort with endometriosis. Prospective analysis of data from the Endometriosis Pelvic Pain Interdisciplinary Cohort Data Registry (Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT02911090) at a tertiary referral center in Western Canada. Three hundred forty-five individuals aged 18-49 years who: (1) had at least one episode of menstrual bleeding in the last 3 months, (2) attended a baseline initial visit, and (3) subsequently had surgery with histological confirmation of endometriosis between January 2018 and December 2023. Exclusion criteria included (1) previous hysterectomy; (2) hormonal suppressive therapy use in the last 3 months; and (3) missing data on mid-cycle pain, history of hormonal therapy use, or menstrual cycle regularity. N/A. Mid-cycle pain in the last month versus No mid-cycle pain in the last month. Of the 345 participants, 67% (n = 232) reported mid-cycle pain in the last month. Mid-cycle pain in the last month was significantly associated with higher mean Central Sensitization Inventory score (48 ± 17 versus 36 ± 16, p < 0.001) and more months of prior hormonal suppressive therapy use (58 [14-120] versus 26 [0-109], p = 0.012). Abnormal anatomy at the time of surgery (e.g., endometrioma, ovarian adhesions) was not associated with mid-cycle pain in the last month. In this endometriosis cohort at a tertiary referral center, most participants reported mid-cycle pain in the last month, which was associated with central sensitization but was not clearly related to endometriosis anatomical distortion.
Balachandran S et al., 2026·Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC
To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on reproductive outcomes in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and the influence of material and social deprivation on these outcomes.
This retrospective cohort study included RPL patients seen at a specialized clinic between March 1, 2018, and February 28, 2022. Patients were categorized into two groups based on care period: pre-pandemic (March 1, 2018-February 29, 2020) and pandemic (March 1, 2020-February 28, 2022). Cumulative probabilities of birth were estimated using the cumulative incidence function within a competing risk framework, treating pregnancy loss as a competing event. Fine and Gray regression models calculated sub-distribution hazard ratio (sHR) of birth.
544 patients were included in the study, with 255 in the pre-pandemic group and 289 in the pandemic group. Individuals in the pandemic group were less likely to achieve pregnancy than those in the pre-pandemic group (relative risk = 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39 - 0.66). Among those who conceived, the cumulative probability of live birth was 0.77 in both groups. Relative to individuals residing in high-social deprivation neighborhoods, those living in moderately deprived areas had higher sub-distribution hazards of live birth (adjusted sHR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.25 - 3.10; P = 0.003).
Within specialized RPL care and a universal maternity care system, pregnancy rates were lower during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, among those who conceived, the probability of achieving a live birth remained similar between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods.
Bouchard TP et al., 2026·Reproductive biomedicine online·Free to read
Does formation of the corpus luteum help to identify the day of ovulation on ultrasound when follicular collapse is missed, and how reliable are sonographers versus a review panel in identifying the day of ovulation on ultrasound? Sonographers in a clinic in Canada performed serial endovaginal ultrasound scans (six to eight per cycle) to identify the day of ovulation in regularly cycling women (n = 40) who were followed for one to five cycles (n = 85). The day of ovulation was identified by: (i) identification of the dominant follicle; (ii) disappearance of the dominant follicle; and (iii) identification and dating of the corpus luteum. The main outcome measures were inter-rater reliability between two sonographers, and Bland-Altman agreement between the supervising sonographer and a panel that reviewed each scan to identify the day of ovulation. Of the 85 menstrual cycles reviewed, two cycles did not have sufficient data to date ovulation, one cycle showed an incidental dermoid cyst, and 11 cycles showed anovulatory patterns. This left a total of 71 cycles (84%) for which intra-rater reliability between two sonographers for identifying the day of ovulation was high (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.99, P < 0.0001), and Bland-Altman agreement showed no significant difference in the estimated day of ovulation between the supervising sonographer and the panel (t = -0.28, P = 0.78). Corpus luteum criteria were necessary to help identify the day of ovulation in 14 of 71 cycles (20%). The estimated day of ovulation can be determined reliably on ultrasound by trained sonographers using collapse of the dominant follicle and formation of the corpus luteum based on six to eight scans per cycle.
Predictive tools are lacking for pain-related outcomes after endometriosis surgery. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a machine learning-based clinical model to predict poor pain-related quality of life after endometriosis surgery. Registry data from a prospective longitudinal cohort at a tertiary referral center (2013-2020) was used for model development and validation. Participants underwent an index endometriosis surgery, and completed the pain subscale of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) at baseline and 1-2-year follow-up. The outcome was poor pain-related quality of life defined as EHP-30 pain subscale above the 75th percentile for North America, at 1 to 2 years postsurgery. Thirty-two preoperative factors were evaluated, with final models retaining the top 10 most important predictors. Elastic net logistic regression, random forest (RF) and multilayer perceptron neural network models were developed. Internal validation was performed using 500 bootstrap samples, and a held-out test cohort. The study included 650 488 in the training cohort and 162 in a held-out test cohort. The RF model exhibited the most consistent discrimination, measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, between the training cohort (0.768; 95% CI: 0.690-0.837) and test cohort (0.766; 95% CI: 0.676-0.863, Δ = -0.002). The RF model also demonstrated the best integrated calibration index (0.029) and highest net benefit. Final preoperative predictors for the RF model included baseline EHP-30 score, surgery type (conservative fertility-sparing vs hysterectomy), anxiety scores, depression scores, pain catastrophizing scale scores, abdominal wall pain, pelvic floor myalgia, smoking status, back pain, and race/ethnicity. We present the RF model as the Endometriosis Pain Index to aid preoperative counselling for endometriosis surgery.
Tan J et al., 2018·Journal of minimally invasive gynecology
Among the variety of treatment options to improve reproductive outcomes for infertile women with adenomyosis (AD), uterine-conserving surgery has shown varying success. Hence, we conducted a systematic review around the topic of fertility-sparing surgery across 18 studies and 1396 infertile women with focal and diffuse AD. Patients with focal AD showed mean pregnancy and miscarriage rates of 52.7% (range,14.3%-77.5%) and 21.1% (range, 0%-44.4%), respectively, whereas patients with diffuse AD had mean pregnancy and miscarriage rates of 34.1% (range, 9.4%-100%) and 21.7% (range, 12.5%-33.3%), respectively. Uterine rupture and preterm birth were observed in 6.8% (3/44) and 4.5% (2/44) of pregnant patients with diffuse AD versus 0% (0/35) and 10.9% (12/110) of patients with focal AD, respectively. No significant differences were observed between natural conception versus assisted reproductive technology (ART) with or without gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist pretreatment. Overall, patients with focal AD appeared to have higher pregnancy rates after conservative surgery compared with diffuse AD, whereas a higher incidence of uterine rupture was reported after surgery for diffuse AD. However, significant heterogeneity precludes any direct comparison, and prospective controlled trials are required to further elucidate the benefits of fertility-preserving surgery over medical or expectant management for AD-related infertility. In view of the debatable benefits of conservative surgery and the possible increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes, particularly in cases of diffuse AD, clinicians should consider surgery on a case-by-case basis because it may be appropriate for women with concurrent AD-associated pelvic pain or menorrhagia, younger infertile women who have failed medical management or older women with infertility despite ART, and those with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss or implantation failure.
Wu CQ et al., 2019·Journal of minimally invasive gynecology
Controversy exists regarding surgical management of endometriomas in infertile women before in vitro fertilization (IVF) because growing evidence indicates that surgery may impair the ovarian response. The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare surgical and expectant management of endometriomas regarding IVF outcomes. Prospective and retrospective controlled studies were found via the Cochrane Library, Embase, and MEDLINE databases. Thirteen studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 12 observational studies, N = 2878) were pooled, and similar live birth rates were observed in the surgically and expectantly managed groups (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.22; p = .98). The clinical pregnancy rates (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.66-1.05; p = .86), the number of mature oocytes retrieved, and the miscarriage rates were not statistically different between study groups. However, the total number of oocytes retrieved was lower in the surgery group (mean difference = -1.51; 95% CI, -2.60 to -0.43; p = .02). Findings suggest that surgical management of endometriomas before IVF therapy yields similar live birth rates as expectant management. However, future properly designed randomized controlled trials are warranted.
Outcomes and Effectiveness · Cumulative Versus Per Cycle Reporting
Outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment are traditionally reported as pregnancies per IVF cycle. However, a couple's primary concern is the chance of a live birth over an entire treatment course. We estimated cumulative live-birth rates among patients undergoing their first fresh-embryo, nondonor IVF cycle between 2000 and 2005 at one large center. Couples were followed until either discontinuation of treatment or delivery of a live-born infant. Analyses were stratified according to maternal age and performed with the use of both optimistic and conservative methods. Optimistic methods assumed that patients who did not return for subsequent IVF cycles would have the same chance of a pregnancy resulting in a live birth as patients who continued treatment; conservative methods assumed no live births among patients who did not return. Among 6164 patients undergoing 14,248 cycles, the cumulative live-birth rate after 6 cycles was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 74) with the optimistic analysis and 51% (95% CI, 49 to 52) with the conservative analysis. Among patients who were younger than 35 years of age, the corresponding rates after six cycles were 86% (95% CI, 83 to 88) and 65% (95% CI, 64 to 67). Among patients who were 40 years of age or older, the corresponding rates were 42% (95% CI, 37 to 47) and 23% (95% CI, 21 to 25). The cumulative live-birth rate decreased with increasing age, and the age-stratified curves (< 35 vs. > or = 40 years) were significantly different from one another (P<0.001). Our results indicate that IVF may largely overcome infertility in younger women, but it does not reverse the age-dependent decline in fertility.
Outcomes and Effectiveness · Cumulative Versus Per Cycle Reporting
Smith ADAC et al., 2015·JAMA·Free full text on PubMed Central
The likelihood of achieving a live birth with repeat in vitro fertilization (IVF) is unclear, yet treatment is commonly limited to 3 or 4 embryo transfers. To determine the live-birth rate per initiated ovarian stimulation IVF cycle and with repeated cycles. DESIGN, SETTING, Prospective study of 156,947 UK women who received 257,398 IVF ovarian stimulation cycles between 2003 and 2010 and were followed up until June 2012. In vitro fertilization, with a cycle defined as an episode of ovarian stimulation and all subsequent separate fresh and frozen embryo transfers. Live-birth rate per IVF cycle and the cumulative live-birth rates across all cycles in all women and by age and treatment type. Optimal, prognosis-adjusted, and conservative cumulative live-birth rates were estimated, reflecting 0%, 30%, and 100%, respectively, of women who discontinued due to poor prognosis and having a live-birth rate of 0 had they continued. Among the 156,947 women, the median age at start of treatment was 35 years (interquartile range, 32-38; range, 18-55), and the median duration of infertility for all 257,398 cycles was 4 years (interquartile range, 2-6; range, <1-29). In all women, the live-birth rate for the first cycle was 29.5% (95% CI, 29.3%-29.7%). This remained above 20% up to and including the fourth cycle. The cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate across all cycles continued to increase up to the ninth cycle, with 65.3% (95% CI, 64.8%-65.8%) of women achieving a live birth by the sixth cycle. In women younger than 40 years using their own oocytes, the live-birth rate for the first cycle was 32.3% (95% CI, 32.0%-32.5%) and remained above 20% up to and including the fourth cycle. Six cycles achieved a cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate of 68.4% (95% CI, 67.8%-68.9%). For women aged 40 to 42 years, the live-birth rate for the first cycle was 12.3% (95% CI, 11.8%-12.8%), with 6 cycles achieving a cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate of 31.5% (95% CI, 29.7%-33.3%). For women older than 42 years, all rates within each cycle were less than 4%. No age differential was observed among women using donor oocytes. Rates were lower for women with untreated male partner-related infertility compared with those with any other cause, but treatment with either intracytoplasmic sperm injection or sperm donation removed this difference. Among women in the United Kingdom undergoing IVF, the cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate after 6 cycles was 65.3%, with variations by age and treatment type. These findings support the efficacy of extending the number of IVF cycles beyond 3 or 4.
Uterine and Pelvic Conditions › Fibroids › Fibroids and Fertility · Assisted Reproduction › Outcomes and Effectiveness › Live Birth Rates
Kiran Rikhraj, Justin Tan, Omur Taskin, Mohamed A Bedaiwy
K Rikhraj, J Tan, O Taskin, M Bedaiwy
PMID 31821069 31821069 DOI 10.1089/jwh.2019.7813 10.1089/jwh.2019.7813 Rikhraj et al. 2020, Rikhraj 2020
03rmrcq20