Uterine bathing with sonography gel prior to IVF/ICSI-treatment in patients with endometriosis, a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effect of uterine bathing with sonography gel prior to IVF/ICSI-treatment on live birth rates after fresh embryo transfer in patients with endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: After formal interim analysis and premature ending of the trial, no significant difference between uterine bathing using a pharmacologically neutral sonography gel compared to a sham procedure on live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer in endometriosis patients (26.7% vs. 15.4%, relative risk (RR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-3.72; P-value 0.147) could be found, although the trial was underpowered to draw definite conclusions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Impaired implantation receptivity contributes to reduced clinical pregnancy rates after IVF/ICSI-treatment in endometriosis patients. Previous studies have suggested a favourable effect of tubal flushing with Lipiodol® on natural conceptions. This benefit might also be explained by enhancing implantation through endometrial immunomodulation. Although recent studies showed no beneficial effect of endometrial scratching, the effect of mechanical stress by intrauterine infusion on the endometrium in endometriosis patients undergoing IVF/ICSI-treatment has not been investigated yet. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We performed a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled trial in which women were randomly allocated to either a Gel Infusion Sonography (GIS, intervention group) or a sham procedure (control group) prior to IVF/ICSI-treatment. Since recruitment was slow and completion of the study was considered unfeasible, the study was halted after inclusion of 112 of the planned 184 women. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: We included infertile women with surgically confirmed endometriosis ASRM stage I-IV undergoing IVF/ICSI-treatment. After informed consent, women were randomised to GIS with intrauterine instillation of ExEm-gel® or sonography with gel into the vagina (sham). This was performed in the cycle preceding the embryo transfer, on the day GnRH analogue treatment was started. The primary endpoint was live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer. Analysis was performed by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between July 2014 to September 2018, we randomly allocated 112 women to GIS (n = 60) or sham procedure (n = 52). The live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer was 16/60 (26.7%) after GIS versus 8/52 (15.4%) after the sham (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.81-3.72; P-value 0.147). Ongoing pregnancy rate was 16/60 (26.7%) after GIS versus 9/52 (17.3%) in the controls (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.74-3.18). Miscarriage occurred in 1/60 (1.7%) after GIS versus 5/52 (9.6%) in the controls (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02-1.44) women. Uterine bathing resulted in a higher pain score compared with a sham procedure (visual analogue scale score 2.7 [1.3-3.5] vs. 1.0 [0.0-2.0], P < 0.001). There were two adverse events after GIS compared with none after sham procedures. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was terminated prematurely due to slow recruitment and trial fatigue. Therefore, the trial is underpowered to draw definite conclusions regarding the effect of uterine bathing with sonography gel on live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer in endometriosis patients undergoing IVF/ICSI-treatment. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We could not demonstrate a favourable effect of uterine bathing procedures with sonography gel prior to IVF/ICSI-treatment in patients with endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Investigator initiated study. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm FOAM® kits free of charge, they were not involved in the study design, data management, statistical analyses and/or manuscript preparation, etc. C.B.L. reports receiving grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction. V.M. reports grants and other from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. B.W.M. reports grants from NHMRC (GNT1176437), personal fees from ObsEva, Merck and Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomix, outside the submitted work. N.P.J. reports research funding from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy for Vifor Pharma, Guerbet, Myovant Sciences and Roche Diagnostics, outside the submitted work. K.D. reports personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report any conflicts of interest. No financial support was provided. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL4025 (NTR4198). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 7 October 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 22 July 2014.

Continuous oral contraceptives versus long-term pituitary desensitization prior to IVF/ICSI in moderate to severe endometriosis: study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTIONS: The primary objective is to investigate if continuous use of oral contraceptives is non-inferior compared to long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in patients with moderate to severe endometriosis with regard to treatment efficacy. Secondary objectives concern treatment safety and cost-effectiveness. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist for 3-6 months prior to IVF/ICSI improves clinical pregnancy rates in women suffering from endometriosis. However, discussion about this treatment strategy exists because of its uncomfortable side effects. Alternatively, IVF/ICSI pre-treatment with continuously administered oral contraceptives may offer fewer side-effects and lower (in)direct costs, as well as encouraging IVF outcomes in women with endometriosis. To date, these two different IVF/ICSI pre-treatment strategies in women with endometriosis have not been directly compared. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: An open-label, parallel two-arm randomized controlled multicenter trial is planned, including patients with moderate to severe endometriosis. To demonstrate an absolute difference of 13% (delta of 10% with non-inferiority margin of 3%) with a power of 80% 137 patients per group are sufficient. Taking into account a withdrawal of patients of 10% and a cancelation rate of embryo transfer after ovarian pick up of 10% (for instance due to fertilization failure), the sample size calculation is rounded off to 165 patients per group; 330 patients in total will be included. After informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to the intervention or reference group by using web based block randomization stratified per centre. Study inclusion is expected to be complete in 3-5 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The research population consists of patients with moderate to severe endometriosis (ASRM III/IV) who are scheduled for their first, second or third IVF/ICSI treatment attempt. Women aged over 41 years, younger than 18 years, with a known contraindication for the use of oral contraceptives and/or GnRH agonists or with severe male factor infertility will be excluded from participation. After informed consent patients are allocated to the intervention group (one-phase oral contraceptive continuously during three subsequent months) or the reference group (three Leuprorelin 3.75 mg i.m./s.c. depot injections during three subsequent months). Tibolon 2.5 mg can be given daily as add-back therapy in the reference group. After 3 months of pre-treatment the IVF/ICSI stimulation phase will be started. The primary outcome is live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes are cumulative live birth rate after one IVF/ICSI treatment cycle (including fresh and frozen embryo transfers up to 15 months after randomization), ongoing pregnancy rate and time to pregnancy. In addition, treatment outcome parameters, adverse events, side-effects during the first 3 months, complications, recurrence of endometriosis (complaints), quality of life, patient preferences, safety and costs effectiveness will be reported. Measurements will be performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months after randomization. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: All authors have no conflict of interest related to this manuscript. The department of reproductive medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered as the COPIE trial (Continuous use of Oral contraceptives as an alternative for long-term Pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in Endometriosis patients) in the Dutch Trial Register (Ref. No. NTR6357, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16 March 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: Enrollment is planned for November 2018.

Transanal minimally invasive rectal resection for deep endometriosis: a promising technique.

AIM: Surgical management of patients with deep endometriosis (DE) of the rectum is difficult. Inflammation and subsequent adhesions due to DE impede access to the lower pelvis and may lead to complications during laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR). Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is an alternative to an abdominal approach with potential advantages. The aim of this study was to provide a description of the TAMIS technique and to present the perioperative results of TAMIS and of conventional LAR in patients with DE. METHOD: A prospective consecutive cohort of patients undergoing rectal resection for DE had either conventional laparoscopic LAR or TAMIS rectal excision. Pre-, intra- and postoperative parameters, such as patient symptomatology, operating time and postoperative complications were compared between the groups. Quality of life was assessed using the EORTC-QLQ-29/30 questionnaires. RESULTS: Between May 2014 and March 2016 a total of 11 rectal resections were performed, including five TAMIS procedures. No differences were found in the pre-, intra- or postoperative parameters. Two major complications occurred after conventional LAR and none after TAMIS. No differences in quality of life were found between the groups. CONCLUSION: Transanal minimally invasive surgery for DE of the rectum is feasible. Potential advantages include better surgical access to the pelvis, possibly fewer complications than LAR and no extraction incision with no difference in quality of life. Larger prospective studies are required to compare TAMIS with conventional rectal resection.

Laparoscopic Imaging Techniques in Endometriosis Therapy: A Systematic Review.

Endometriosis is a common disease associated with pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopic surgical treatment has proven effective in endometriosis, but is hampered by a high rate of recurrence. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the intraoperative identification of endometriosis by enhanced laparoscopic imaging techniques, focusing on sensitivity and specificity. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Published prospective studies reporting on enhanced laparoscopic imaging techniques during endometriosis surgery were included. General study characteristics and reported outcomes, including sensitivity and specificity, were extracted. Nine studies were eligible for inclusion. Three techniques were described: 5-ALA fluorescence (5-ALA), autofluorescence (AFI), and narrow-band imaging (NBI). The reported sensitivity of 5-ALA and AFI for identifying endometriosis ranged from 91% to 100%, compared with 48% to 69% for conventional white light laparoscopy (WL). A randomized controlled trial comparing NBI + WL with WL alone reported better sensitivity of NBI (100% vs 79%; p < .001). All 9 studies reported an enhanced detection rate of endometriotic lesions with enhanced imaging techniques. Enhanced imaging techniques are a promising additive for laparoscopic detection and treatment of endometriosis. The 5-ALA, AFI, and NBI intraoperative imaging techniques had a better detection rate for peritoneal endometriosis compared with conventional WL laparoscopy. None of the studies reported clinical data regarding outcomes. Future studies should address long-term results, such as quality of life, recurrence, and need for reoperation.

Hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion versus laparoscopic salpingectomy as a treatment for hydrosalpinges prior to IVF or ICSI: an RCT.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion by intratubal devices as a treatment for hydrosalpinges result in comparable ongoing pregnancy rates following IVF/ICSI when compared with laparoscopic salpingectomy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion by intratubal devices is inferior to laparoscopic salpingectomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinges in women undergoing IVF/ICSI with respect to ongoing pregnancy rates. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: It is known that women with hydrosalpinges undergoing IVF have poorer pregnancy outcomes compared with women with other forms of tubal infertility. In these women, both laparoscopic salpingectomy and laparoscopic proximal tubal ligation are known to improve IVF outcomes. At present, it is unclear whether a less-invasive hysteroscopic treatment with intratubal devices leads to similar ongoing pregnancy rates following IVF when compared with laparoscopic salpingectomy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A two-centre, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Between October 2009 and December 2014 a total of 85 women were included in this study; of whom, 42 were randomized to hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal device placement and 43 were randomized to laparoscopic salpingectomy. Randomization was based on a computer-generated randomization list. The study was unblinded. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate, defined as a fetal heartbeat on ultrasound beyond 10-week gestation following one IVF/ICSI treatment (fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied women aged 18-41 years, with uni- or bilateral ultrasound visible hydrosalpinges who were scheduled for an IVF/ICSI treatment. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The ongoing pregnancy rates per patient according to the intention-to-treat principle were 11/42 (26.2%) after hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal devices (intervention group) versus 24/43 (55.8%) after laparoscopic salpingectomy (control group) (P = 0.008) [absolute difference: 26.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5-51.7, relative risk (RR): 0.56; 95% CI: 0.31-1.03, P = 0.01]. In the per protocol analysis, the ongoing pregnancy rate per patient following hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal devices was 9/27 (33.3%) compared with 19/32 (59.4%) following laparoscopic salpingectomy (P = 0.067) (absolute difference: 29.6%; 95% CI: 7.1 to 49.1, RR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.27-0.83, P = 0.062). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Masking participants and investigators would be difficult due to the nature of both interventions. Since we had objective outcome measurements, we withheld sham procedures, leaving the study unblinded. Furthermore, our low sample size resulted in wide CIs. A larger sample size would result in a more accurate treatment effect; however, this was non-feasible for recruitment and inclusion. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In the treatment of hydrosalpinges prior to IVF/ICSI, hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal devices is inferior to laparoscopic salpingectomy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The intratubal devices were received from Conceptus, Inc., San Carlos, CA, USA, which was acquired by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Whippany, NJ, USA in 2013. Conceptus, Inc./Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had no role in the study design, data collection and analyses, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The study as a whole was funded by the SWOG (foundation for scientific investigation in obstetrics and gynaecology of the VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). P.G.A.H. has received non-financial support from Conceptus, Inc. during the conduct of this study. He has received grants from Ferring B.V., Merck Serono and Abbott outside the submitted work. M.H.E. has received personal fees from Smith and Nephew and IQ Medical Ventures outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Dutch Trial Register: NTR 2073. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: October 21, 2009. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: October 26, 2009.