SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology / 2018 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 3

Açıklanamayan infertilite ve dismorfik uterus olan hastalarda ofis histeroskopik metroplastinin üreme sonuçları

Reproductive outcomes of office hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with unexplained infertility with dysmorphic uterus

Bülent HAYDARDEDEOĞLU
Gülşen Doğan DURDAĞ
Seda ŞİMŞEK
Pınar Çağlar AYTAÇ
Tayfun ÇOK
Esra Bulgan KILIÇDAĞ
Pages
135–140
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Ofis histeroskopi bu işlemin non-invaziv alternatifidir.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Giriş: Dismorfik uterus ve infertilite arasındaki ilişki hala bilinmemektedir.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Dismorfik uterusu ve açıklanamayan infertilite tanısı olan hastalarda ofis histeroskopik metroplastinin üreme üzerine olan sonuçlarını değerlendirdik.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Ofis histeroskopi bu işlemin non-invaziv alternatifidir.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Giriş: Dismorfik uterus ve infertilite arasındaki ilişki hala bilinmemektedir. Dismorfik uterusu ve açıklanamayan infertilite tanısı olan hastalarda ofis histeroskopik metroplastinin üreme üzerine olan sonuçlarını değerlendirdik. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif kohort çalışmada, kliniğimizde Ocak 2013-Aralık 2016 tarihleri arasında bipolar ofis histeroskopik metroplasti uygulanan 272 dismorfik uterus ve açıklanamayan infertil hastalar değerlendirilmiştir. Bu hastaların 162 tanesi primer infertil 110 tanesi sekonder infertildir. Bulgular: Primer infertil olan hastalarda hsiteroskopik metroplasti sonrası klinik gebelik oranı %45,68 (74/162), sekonder infertil grupta %55,65 (61/110) olarak bulunmuştur. Her iki grupta metroplasti sonrası canlı doğum oranı %38,9 (63/162) ve %49 (54/110)’dur. Düşük oranı ve özellikle dış gebelik oranı sekonder infertil grupta dramatik olarak azalmıştır [düşük oranı; %84,5’den (93/110) %9,8’e (6/61) düşmüş ve ektopik gebelik %15,5’den (17/110) %1,6’ya (1/61) düşmüştür) (p=0,01)]. Sonuç: Dismorfik uteruslu infertil kadın fertilitesini artırmak için ofis histeroskopi yoluyla opere edilmelidir. Müllerian anomaliler üreme sonuçlarına olumsuz etkileri olmaktadır. Dismorfik uterusun histeroskopik metroplasti ile düzeltilmesi bizim çalışma grubumuzda özellikle atlanmış uterin faktör olarak infertilite problemini de düzeltebilecektir. Ofis histeroskopi bu işlemin non-invaziv alternatifidir.

Özet

Objective: The correlation between dysmorphic uterus and infertility still remains enigmatic. We evaluated the reproductive outcomes of metroplasty viaoffice hysteroscopy in unexplained infertile women with dysmorphic uteri.Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, metroplasty via office hysteroscopy using a bipolar system was performed to 272 women withunexplained infertility with dysmorphic uteri from January 2013 to January 2016. Of all the patients, 162 had primary infertility, and 110 had secondaryinfertility.Results: In the primary infertility group, the clinical pregnancy rate was 45.68% (74/162) and the live birth rate was 38.9% (63/162), and in the secondaryinfertility group, the clinical pregnancy rate was 55.45% (61/110) and the live birth rate was 49% (54/110) after metroplasty. In the secondary infertilitygroup, the miscarriage rate and especially the ectopic pregnancy rate declined dramatically [from 84.5% (93/110) to 9.8% (6/61) and from 15.5% (17/110)to 1.6% (1/61), respectively] (p<0.01).Conclusion: Reproductive outcome can be impaired by Müllerian anomalies, hence, infertile women with dysmorphic uteri should undergo hysteroscopyto improve reproductive outcomes. Our study demonstrated that office hysteroscopic metroplasty of a dysmorphic uterus might improve fertility,particularly in patients with unexplained infertility with dysmorphic uteri, which was an ignored factor previously. Office hysteroscopy is an alternativeoption in terms of non-invasive procedure.

🔖

Cite This Article

HAYDARDEDEOĞLU, B., DURDAĞ, G. D., ŞİMŞEK, S., AYTAÇ, P. Ç., ÇOK, T., KILIÇDAĞ, E. B. (2018). Açıklanamayan infertilite ve dismorfik uterus olan hastalarda ofis histeroskopik metroplastinin üreme sonuçları. Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 3, 135–140. https://ajindex.com/articles/376259

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2032-44. No authors listed. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988;49:944-55.
  2. Nagel TC, Malo JW. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in the diethylstilbestrol-exposed uterus and similar nonfusion anomalies: effects on subsequent reproductive performance; a preliminary report. Fertil Steril 1993;59:502-6.
  3. Katz Z, Ben-Arie A, Lurie S, Manor M, Insler V. Beneficial effect of hysteroscopic metroplasty on the reproductive outcome in a ‘T-shaped’ uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1996;41:41-3.
  4. Garbin O, Ohl J, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Dellenbach P. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in diethylstilboestrol-exposed and hypoplastic uterus: a report on 24 cases. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2751-5.
  5. Fernandez H, Garbin O, Castaigne V, Gervaise A, Levaillant JM. Surgical approach to and reproductive outcome after surgical correction of a T-shapeduterus. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1730-4.
  6. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Florio P, Nazzaro G, Spinelli M, Paladini D, Di Carlo C, et al. Hysteroscopic outpatient metroplasty to expand dysmorphic uteri (HOME-DU technique): a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:166-74. World Health Organization WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2010. Acien P. Incidence of müllerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1372-6.
  7. Salim R, Regan L, Woelfer B, Backos M, Jurkovic D. A comparative study of the morphology of congenital uterine anomalies in women with and without a history of recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod 2003;18:162-6
  8. Rackow BW, Arici A. Reproductive performance of women with müllerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19: 229-37.
  9. Zreik TG, Troiano RN, Ghoussoub RA, Olive DL, Arici A, McCarthy SM. Myometrial tissue in uterine septa. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1998;5:155-60.
  10. Venetis CA, Papadopoulos SP, Campo R, Gordts S, Tarlatzis BC, Grimbizis GF. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;29:665-83. Tomaževič T, Ban-Frangež H, Virant-Klun I, Verdenik I, Požlep B, Vrtažnik-Bokal E. Septate, subseptate and arcu