Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Ginecologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ginecologica 2016 October;68(5) > Minerva Ginecologica 2016 October;68(5):481-6

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUEMINERVA GINECOLOGICA

A Journal on Obstetrics and Gynecology

Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index

Frequency: Bi-Monthly

ISSN 0026-4784

Online ISSN 1827-1650

 

Minerva Ginecologica 2016 October;68(5):481-6

    ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Control-matched surgical evaluation of endometriosis progression after IVF: a retrospective cohort study

Patrice CROCHET 1, Ruth B. LATHI 2, Michael H. DAHAN 3, Jamie OCAMPO 1, Mario NUTIS 1, Camran R. NEZHAT 1

1 Center for Special Minimally Invasive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA, USA; 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA; 3 Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the surgical findings at repeated surgeries for endometriosis and to compare disease progression in patients after IVF to those without interval fertility treatments.
METHODS: A retrospective case-control study set at the referral center for gynecologic endoscopy at Stanford University. Women who had two surgeries for treatment of symptomatic endometriosis since 1997 were searched in the database. Twenty-one women were identified who underwent IVF treatment between the two procedures (IVF group), and compared to 36 women who did not receive any fertility treatment (controls). The main outcomes were time to recurrence and surgical findings including rASRM score. The presence and size of endometrioma, rectovaginal and para-rectal spaces location of endometriosis were also compared between the two surgical procedures.
RESULTS: Demographics in the two groups were similar. The change in rASRM score between surgeries was not significantly different (P=0.80) between the two groups. There was no difference between the two groups in the size and number of pathology proven endometriomas as well as no difference in the presence of rectovaginal and pararectal endometriosis.
CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was found in the two groups, suggesting that IVF treatment does not lead to an accelerated progression of endometriosis in patients with recurrence.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page