Uterine Septum with or without Hysteroscopic Metroplasty: Impact on Fertility and Obstetrical Outcomes-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Research.

Marco Noventa, Giulia Spagnol, Matteo Marchetti, Carlo Saccardi, Giulio Bonaldo, Antonio Simone Laganà, Francesco Cavallin, Alessandra Andrisani, Guido Ambrosini, Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Luis Alonso Pacheco, Sergio Haimovich, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Jose Carugno, Marco Scioscia, Simone Garzon, Stefano Bettocchi, Giovanni Buzzaccarini, Roberto Tozzi, Amerigo Vitagliano
Author Information
  1. Marco Noventa: Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, 35100 Padua, Italy.
  2. Giulia Spagnol: Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, 35100 Padua, Italy.
  3. Matteo Marchetti: Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, 35100 Padua, Italy.
  4. Carlo Saccardi: Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, 35100 Padua, Italy.
  5. Giulio Bonaldo: Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, 35100 Padua, Italy.
  6. Antonio Simone Laganà: Unit of Gynecology Oncology, Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialities (PROMISE), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy. ORCID
  7. Francesco Cavallin: Independent Researcher, 36020 Solagna, Italy.
  8. Alessandra Andrisani: Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, 35100 Padua, Italy.
  9. Guido Ambrosini: Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, 35100 Padua, Italy.
  10. Salvatore Giovanni Vitale: Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Department of General Surgery and Medical Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, 95124 Catania, Italy.
  11. Luis Alonso Pacheco: Endoscopy Unit, Centro Gutenberg, 29003 Málaga, Spain.
  12. Sergio Haimovich: Hillel Yaffe Medical Center, Technion-Israel Technology Institute, Hadera 38100, Israel. ORCID
  13. Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo: Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, 80138 Naples, Italy.
  14. Jose Carugno: Minimally Invasive Gynecology Unit, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Department, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
  15. Marco Scioscia: Unit of Gynecology, Mater Dei Hospital, 70125 Bari, Italy. ORCID
  16. Simone Garzon: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AOUI Verona, University of Verona, 37126 Verona, Italy.
  17. Stefano Bettocchi: Inter-Departmental Project Unit of Minimal-Invasive Gynecological Surgery, Policlinico of Bari, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70121 Bari, Italy.
  18. Giovanni Buzzaccarini: Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, 35100 Padua, Italy. ORCID
  19. Roberto Tozzi: Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, 35100 Padua, Italy.
  20. Amerigo Vitagliano: Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, 35100 Padua, Italy. ORCID

Abstract

Objective: we performed a systematic review/meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of septate uterus and hysteroscopic metroplasty on pregnancy rate-(PR), live birth rate-(LBR), spontaneous abortion-(SA) and preterm labor (PL) in infertile/recurrent miscarriage-(RM) patients. Data sources: a literature search of relevant papers was conducted using electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase, Science direct). Study eligibility criteria: we included in this meta-analysis all types of observational studies that evaluated the clinical impact of the uterine septum and its resection (hysteroscopic metroplasty) on reproductive and obstetrics outcomes. The population included were patients with a diagnosis of infertility or recurrent pregnancy loss. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: outcomes were evaluated according to three subgroups: (i) Women with untreated uterine septum versus women without septum (controls); (ii) Women with treated uterine septum versus women with untreated septum (controls); (iii) Women before and after septum removal. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the outcome measures. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the depth of the septum. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by meta-regression analysis according to specific features: assisted reproductive technology/spontaneous conception, study design and quality of papers included Results: data from 38 studies were extracted. (i) septum versus no septum: a lower PR and LBR were associated with septate uterus vs. controls (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27−0.76; p < 0.0001; and OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12−0.39; p < 0.0001); a higher proportion of SA and PL was associated with septate uterus vs. controls (OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.90−6.36; p < 0.0001; OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.52−4.31; p = 0.0004). (ii) treated versus untreated septum: PR and PL were not different in removed vs. unremoved septum(OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.49−2.49; p = 0.82 and OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.35−1.86; p = 0.62); a lower proportion of SA was associated with removed vs. unremoved septum (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21−1.04; p = 0.001); (iii) before-after septum removal: the proportion of LBR was higher after the removal of septum (OR 49.58, 95% CI 29.93−82.13; p < 0.0001) and the proportion of SA and PL was lower after the removal of the septum (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.02−0.04; p < 0.000 and OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.03−0.08; p < 0.0001) Conclusions: the results show the detrimental effect of the uterine septum on PR, LBR, SA and PL. Its treatment reduces the rate of SA.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097 [PMID: 19621072]
  2. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;37(6):727-32 [PMID: 21337662]
  3. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022 Apr;29(4):465-475 [PMID: 34648934]
  4. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Mar;289(3):671-6 [PMID: 24026089]
  5. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Nov;21(5):700-5 [PMID: 20864409]
  6. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Jan-Feb;20(1):22-42 [PMID: 23312243]
  7. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Aug;98(2):129-33 [PMID: 17588572]
  8. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;98(6):1099-103 [PMID: 11755560]
  9. Obstet Gynecol. 1986 Feb;67(2):253-7 [PMID: 2935760]
  10. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2016;2016:3086036 [PMID: 27110088]
  11. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Dec;115(3):260-3 [PMID: 21945050]
  12. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1998 Nov;63(2):159-62 [PMID: 9856322]
  13. Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58 [PMID: 12111919]
  14. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Dec;29(6):665-83 [PMID: 25444500]
  15. J Reprod Med. 1995 Oct;40(10):684-8 [PMID: 8551467]
  16. Hum Reprod. 2020 Jul 1;35(7):1722 [PMID: 32472131]
  17. Fertil Steril. 1979 Jul;32(1):40-6 [PMID: 456629]
  18. Hum Reprod. 2020 Nov 1;35(11):2627-2629 [PMID: 32968815]
  19. BJOG. 2019 Sep;126(10):1192-1199 [PMID: 31004459]
  20. ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6 [PMID: 12956787]
  21. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2001 Feb;8(1):111-6 [PMID: 11172125]
  22. Fertil Steril. 2000 Jan;73(1):1-14 [PMID: 10632403]
  23. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 May;113(2):128-30 [PMID: 21392763]
  24. Fertil Steril. 1996 Apr;65(4):750-2 [PMID: 8654633]
  25. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Oct;146(2):184-7 [PMID: 18524455]
  26. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2007 May;62(5):335-47; quiz 353-4 [PMID: 17425812]
  27. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;136(2):417-419 [PMID: 32649503]
  28. Acta Eur Fertil. 1989 Sep-Oct;20(5):321-5 [PMID: 2636810]
  29. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jul-Aug;18(4):449-54 [PMID: 21621483]
  30. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000 Jan;88(1):81-4 [PMID: 10659922]
  31. Hum Reprod Update. 2001 Mar-Apr;7(2):161-74 [PMID: 11284660]
  32. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Dec;205(6):558.e1-5 [PMID: 21907963]
  33. Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):455-63 [PMID: 10877304]
  34. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Feb;25(2):199-208 [PMID: 28803811]
  35. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 Feb;283(2):273-9 [PMID: 20041257]
  36. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 Mar;155(1):54-7 [PMID: 21185112]
  37. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(18):2141-4 [PMID: 25354290]
  38. Fertil Steril. 1992 Jan;57(1):81-4 [PMID: 1730335]
  39. Fertil Steril. 2009 Jun;91(6):2643-9 [PMID: 18565515]
  40. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2010;37(4):287-9 [PMID: 21355459]
  41. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021 May;303(5):1131-1142 [PMID: 33550465]
  42. Fertil Steril. 1988 Jun;49(6):944-55 [PMID: 3371491]
  43. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jan;51(1):110-117 [PMID: 29055072]
  44. Fertil Steril. 2016 Sep 1;106(3):530-40 [PMID: 27235766]
  45. Photomed Laser Surg. 2006 Oct;24(5):625 [PMID: 17069494]
  46. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Apr;34(3):235-7 [PMID: 24483130]
  47. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Nov-Dec;22(6S):S110-S111 [PMID: 27678590]
  48. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 May;24(5):576-82 [PMID: 22417666]
  49. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jul;98(30):e16623 [PMID: 31348312]
  50. Hum Reprod. 2021 Apr 20;36(5):1166-1170 [PMID: 33793818]
  51. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Mar;20(3):416-22 [PMID: 20093084]
  52. Fertil Steril. 2010 Apr;93(6):1983-8 [PMID: 19249757]
  53. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;38(4):371-82 [PMID: 21830244]
  54. Hum Reprod. 2021 Apr 20;36(5):1260-1267 [PMID: 33793794]
  55. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Dec 05;12:CD009461 [PMID: 30521679]
  56. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2002 Jul;266(3):157-9 [PMID: 12197556]
  57. JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12 [PMID: 10789670]
  58. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2004 May;11(2):240-4 [PMID: 15200782]
  59. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006 Feb;28(2):156-9 [PMID: 16643719]
  60. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2003 Oct;268(4):289-92 [PMID: 14504871]
  61. Acta Eur Fertil. 1983 Sep-Oct;14(5):311-8 [PMID: 6673450]
  62. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Mar-Apr;20(2):178-84 [PMID: 23317507]
  63. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 Feb;35(2):155-8 [PMID: 25058627]
  64. Hum Reprod. 2013 Aug;28(8):2032-44 [PMID: 23771171]
  65. Fertil Steril. 2009 Jun;91(6):2628-31 [PMID: 18571168]
  66. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Sep - Oct;27(6):1287-1294 [PMID: 31812613]
  67. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1997 May;4(3):311-7 [PMID: 9154779]
  68. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Apr;105(1):25-8 [PMID: 19111303]
  69. Hum Reprod. 1998 May;13(5):1188-93 [PMID: 9647545]
  70. Am J Surg. 1946 Jan;71:106-66 [PMID: 21028476]
  71. Hum Reprod. 1997 Oct;12(10):2277-81 [PMID: 9402295]
  72. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jan;172(1 Pt 1):105-7 [PMID: 7847514]
  73. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Mar;14(3):335-40 [PMID: 17359587]
  74. Hum Reprod Update. 2000 Jan-Feb;6(1):75-9 [PMID: 10711832]
  75. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jan;51(1):101-109 [PMID: 29024135]
  76. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;213(4):545.e1-4 [PMID: 26070711]
  77. Hum Reprod. 1993 Jan;8(1):122-6 [PMID: 8458914]
  78. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 May-Jun;23(4):557-66 [PMID: 26829218]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.00septumOR95%CIp<SAPLuterine0001PRLBRversuscontrolsvsproportion=septateuterusmetroplastypregnancyincludedaccordingWomenuntreatedremovallowerassociatedrateperformedimpacthysteroscopicrate-livebirthspontaneouspretermpatientspapersStudystudiesevaluatedreproductiveoutcomesinfertilityrecurrentwomenwithoutiitreatediii05analysisseptum:higher2921removedunremoved4904Objective:systematicreview/meta-analysisevaluateabortion-laborinfertile/recurrentmiscarriage-RMDatasources:literaturesearchrelevantconductedusingelectronicbibliographicdatabasesMedlineScopusEmbaseSciencedirecteligibilitycriteria:meta-analysistypesobservationalclinicalresectionobstetricspopulationdiagnosislossappraisalsynthesismethods:threesubgroups:Oddsratiosconfidenceintervalscalculatedoutcomemeasuresp-valueconsideredstatisticallysignificantSubgroupdepthSourcesheterogeneityexploredmeta-regressionspecificfeatures:assistedtechnology/spontaneousconceptionstudydesignqualityResults:data38extracted4527−0762112−039490−6365652−4310004different1049−2828135−186624721−1001before-afterremoval:5893−82130202−000003−008Conclusions:resultsshowdetrimentaleffecttreatmentreducesUterineSeptumHysteroscopicMetroplasty:ImpactFertilityObstetricalOutcomes-ASystematicReviewMeta-AnalysisObservationalResearchlabourmiscarriageabortion

Similar Articles

Cited By