Effect of endometrial scratching on unassisted conception for unexplained infertility: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether endometrial scratching increases the chance of live birth in women with unexplained infertility attempting to conceive without assisted reproductive technology. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, participant-blind, multicenter international trial. SETTING: Fertility clinics. PATIENT(S): Women with a diagnosis of unexplained infertility trying to conceive without assistance. INTERVENTION(S): Participants were randomly assigned to receive an endometrial biopsy or a placebo procedure (placement of a biopsy catheter in the posterior fornix, without inserting it into the external cervical os). Both groups performed regular unprotected intercourse with the intention of conceiving over three consecutive study cycles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was live birth. RESULT(S): A total of 220 women underwent randomization. The live birth rate was 9% (10 of 113 women) in the endometrial-scratch group and 7% (7 of 107 women) in the control group (adjusted OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.50-4.03). There were no differences between the groups in the secondary outcomes of clinical pregnancy, viable pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and miscarriage. Endometrial scratching was associated with a higher pain score on a 10-point scale (adjusted mean difference, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.53-3.60). CONCLUSION(S): This trial did not find evidence that endometrial scratching improves the live birth rate in women with unexplained infertility trying to conceive without assistance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000656639.

A randomized trial of endometrial scratching in women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction cycles.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does endometrial scratching improve the chance of a live birth in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing ovulation induction and trying to conceive? DESIGN: An international, multicentre, randomized, sham-controlled trial across six fertility clinics in three countries (New Zealand, UK and Brazil). Women with a diagnosis of PCOS who were planning to commence ovulation induction cycles (at least three cycles) in order to conceive were randomly assigned to receive the pipelle (scratch) procedure or a sham (placebo) procedure in the first cycle of ovulation induction. Women kept a diary of ovulation induction and sexual intercourse timing over three consecutive cycles and pregnancies were followed up to live birth. Primary outcome was live birth and secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, adverse pregnancy outcomes, neonatal outcomes, bleeding following procedure and pain score following procedure. RESULTS: A total of 117 women were randomized; 58 to the scratch group and 59 to the sham group. Live birth occurred in 11 (19%) women in the scratch group and 14 (24%) in the sham group (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-1.92). Secondary outcomes were similar in each group. Significantly higher pain scores were reported in the scratch group (adjusted mean difference 3.2, 95% CI 2.5-3.9) when measured on a visual analogue scale. CONCLUSION: No difference was detected in live birth rate for women with PCOS who received an endometrial scratch when trying to conceive using ovulation induction; however, uncertainty remains due to the small sample size in this study.

The use of oil-soluble contrast media for tubal flushing in infertility: A consensus statement from ACCEPT (Australasian CREI Consensus Expert Panel on Trial evidence).

Good evidence that oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) enhances pregnancy rates when used to assess fallopian tube patency by hysterosalpingogram has prompted rapid clinical uptake by some fertility doctors and imaging specialists in Australia and New Zealand. The ACCEPT group met in July 2019 to develop a consensus document outlining the indications for and safe use of OSCM, to inform and guide clinicians interested in offering procedures using this media to couples with infertility.

When to Do Surgery and When Not to Do Surgery for Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to answer whether operative laparoscopy is an effective treatment in a woman with demonstrated endometriosis compared with alternative treatments. Moreover, we aimed to assess the risks of operative laparoscopy compared with those of alternatives. In addition, we aimed to systematically review the literature on the impact of patient preference on decision making around surgery. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINAHL, Scopus, OpenGrey, and Web of Science from inception through May 2019. In addition, a manual search of reference lists of relevant studies was conducted. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language describing a comparison between surgery and any other intervention were included, with particular reference to timing and its impact on pain and fertility. Studies reporting on keywords including, but not limited to, endometriosis, laparoscopy, pelvic pain, and infertility were included. In the anticipated absence of RCTs on patient preference, all original research on this topic was considered eligible. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: In total, 1990 studies were reviewed. Twelve studies were identified as being eligible for inclusion to assess outcomes of pain (n = 6), fertility (n = 7), quality of life (n = 1), and disease progression (n = 3). Seven studies of interest were identified to evaluate patient preferences. There is evidence that operative laparoscopy may improve overall pain levels at 6 months compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (risk ratio [RR], 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-4.34; p <.001; 2 RCTs, 102 participants; low-quality evidence). Because the quality of the evidence was very low, it is uncertain if operative laparoscopy improves live birth rates. Operative laparoscopy probably yields little or no difference regarding clinical pregnancy rates compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.99-1.92; p = .06; 4 RCTs, 624 participants; moderate-quality evidence). It is uncertain if operative laparoscopy yields a difference in adverse outcomes when compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.84-4.65; p = .12; 5 RCTs, 554 participants; very-low-quality evidence). No studies reported on the progression of endometriosis to a symptomatic state or progression of extent of disease in terms of volume of lesions and locations in asymptomatic women with endometriosis. We found no studies that reported on the timing of surgery. No quantitative or qualitative studies specifically aimed at elucidating the factors informing a woman's choice for surgery were identified. CONCLUSION: Operative laparoscopy may improve overall pain levels but may have little or no difference with respect to fertility-related or adverse outcomes when compared with diagnostic laparoscopy. Additional high-quality RCTs, including comparing surgery to medical management, are needed, and these should report adverse events as an outcome. Studies on patient preference in surgical decision making are needed (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration number: CRD42019135167).

The IVF-LUBE trial - a randomized trial to assess Lipiodol® uterine bathing effect in women with endometriosis or repeat implantation failure undergoing IVF.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does pre-IVF Lipiodol® increase the success of IVF treatment in women with endometriosis or repeat implantation failure (RIF) compared with IVF alone? DESIGN: Lipiodol is known to enhance natural fertility, especially amongst women with endometriosis. The effect of Lipiodol may accrue through an impact on the endometrium that enhances receptivity to implantation. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was carried out on 70 women due to undergo IVF. Women with endometriosis or RIF in previous IVF treatments, recruited from IVF clinics in New Zealand and in Pune, India, received either Lipiodol by hysterosalpingogram or no intervention prior to IVF treatment. RESULTS: Between May 2009 and January 2014, 33 women were randomized to Lipiodol plus IVF and 37 to IVF alone. When pregnancies resulting from fresh embryo transfer from the IVF cycle under study were considered, live birth rates were 8/33 (24%) in the pre-IVF Lipiodol group and 11/37 (30%) in the IVF only group (relative risk [RR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 1.8). Live birth rates from pregnancies within 6 months were 11/33 (33%) and 12/37 (32%) in these respective groups (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.53 to 2.0). The trial was underpowered to detect smaller differences between treatment and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found of benefit of Lipiodol prior to fresh embryo transfer in women with endometriosis or RIF. It is suggested that this treatment should not be undertaken purely as an adjuvant in IVF other than in the context of a further well-designed RCT.