Search

Background/Objectives: Deep infiltrating endometriosis has been linked to worsened maternal and neonatal outcomes. However, reports regarding bowel endometriosis are still scanty. We aimed to evaluate pregnancy, delivery, and newborn adverse outcomes in women after laparoscopic-assisted surgery for bowel endometriosis. Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary-care university hospital. From January 2015 to December 2021, pregnant women who were diagnosed and treated for bowel endometriosis were matched using a 1:3 ratio with pregnant women with no history of endometriosis. Patients were matched using the Cox proportional hazards model to determine parity, age, BMI and gestational age-adjusted relative risk (aRR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Co-primary outcomes were the incidence of labor abnormalities and cesarean section (CS) rate. Co-secondary outcomes were incidence of complications related to pregnancy, delivery, and newborn. Results: A total of 71 pregnancies among women treated for bowel endometriosis and 213 from healthy controls were included. Patients requiring IVF/ET for getting pregnant were in the bowel endometriosis group relative to controls (43.7% vs. 11.7%; p < 0.001). Increased risk of labor abnormalities was present for bowel endometriosis relative to controls (21.1% vs. 17.4%; p = 0.040; aRR 1.39 [95% CI 1.06–2.05]). Risk of non-cephalic fetal presentation (14.1% vs. 6.1%; p = 0.016; aRR 3.08 [95% CI 2.03–4.68]), CS rate (43.7% vs. 24.9%; p = 0.003; aRR 1.75 [95% CI 1.23–2.49]), and emergent CS rate (19.7% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.009; aRR 2.21 [95% CI 1.55–3.16]) were significantly higher in women treated for colorectal endometriosis compared with controls. Moreover, placenta previa (9.9% vs. 0.0%; p < 0.001; aRR 21.82 [95% CI 2.19–116.40]), second-trimester hemorrhage (5.6% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.017; aRR 6.00 [95% CI 1.12–32.06]), postpartum hemorrhage (15.5% vs. 3.3%; p < 0.001; aRR 4.71 [95% CI 1.90–11.70]), and the need for transfusion during labor (5.6% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.004; aRR 12.00 [95% CI 1.36–105.60]) were increased in treatments vs. controls. Concerning neonatal outcomes, an increased risk for neonatal intensive care unit admission was seen in postsurgical endometriotic women relative to healthy controls (26.0% vs. 6.9%; p < 0.001; aRR 3.75 [2.04–3.86]). Conclusions: Women treated for bowel endometriosis seem more exposed to adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes relative to healthy controls. However, additional prospective and comparative studies are needed to validate the available evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Climacteric is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate the prevalence and impact of impaired thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels on the reproductive outcomes of in vitro fertilization patients diagnosed with endometriosis and compared to controls without endometriosis. Design: This is a retrospective cohort study on prospectively collected data. Setting: The study was conducted at tertiary care university hospital. Participants: Participants were infertile women with histopathological diagnosis of endometriosis. Methods: For 12 months (January 2018 to January 2019), women were deemed suitable and subsequently divided according to serum TSH levels above or below 2.5 mIU/L and compared to patients without endometriosis. Needed sample size was at least 41 patients for each cohort of women. Co-primary outcomes were the live birth rate (LBR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and pregnancy loss rate (PLR). Results: Overall, 226 women (45 with endometriosis and 181 controls without endometriosis) were included. Diagnoses of Hashimoto thyroiditis were significantly more frequent in women with rather than without endometriosis (14/45 [31.1%] vs. 27/181 [14.9%]; p = 0.012). Similarly, in women with endometriosis, Hashimoto diagnosis rates were higher with TSH ≥2.5 mIU/L compared to TSH <2.5 mIU/L (9/15 [60%] vs.5/30 [16.6%]; p = 0.001) so were the Hashimoto diagnosis rates in control group (women without endometriosis) with TSH ≥2.5 mIU/L compared to TSH <2.5 mIU/L (17/48 [35.4%] vs. 10/133 [7.5%], respectively; p = 0.001). Effect size analysis confirmed an increased risk of Hashimoto thyroiditis in women with endometriosis and TSH ≥2.5 mIU/L compared to women with endometriosis and TSH <2.5 mIU/L (risk ratio [RR] 3.60 [95% CI 1.46–8.86]) and in women with endometriosis and TSH ≥2.5 mIU/L compared to non-endometriotic euthyroid patients (RR 7.98 [95% CI 3.86–16.48]). Dysmenorrhea risk was higher in endometriotic euthyroid women compared to euthyroid patients with no endometriosis (RR 1.87 [95% CI 1.21–2.87]). The risk was still increased in euthyroid women with endometriosis relative to dysthyroid women with no endometriosis (RR 1.97 [95% CI 1.11–3.50]). There were no significant differences between the four groups for CPR, LBR, PLR and retrieved oocytes, immature oocytes, degenerated and unfertilized oocytes, cultured blastocysts, embryos and transferred embryos. Limitations: Limitations of the study were retrospective design, limited sample size, and use of different ovarian stimulation protocol. Conclusions: Thyroid autoimmunity seems more common in women with endometriosis and TSH over 2.5 mIU/L. However, there was no significant impact on in vitro fertilization and reproductive outcomes related to the coexistence of endometriosis, Hashimoto disease, and higher TSH levels. Due to limitations of the study, additional evidence is required to validate the abovementioned findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Despite advancements in detection and treatment, cervical cancer remains a significant health concern, particularly among young women of reproductive age. Limited data exists in the literature regarding fertility-sparing treatment (FST) of cervical cancers with tumor sizes greater than 2 cm. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the reproductive outcomes of women diagnosed with cervical cancer greater than 2 cm who underwent FST. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register), the Health Technology Assessment Database, and Web of Science. Only original studies (retrospective or prospective) that reported reproductive outcomes of patients with cervical cancer >2 cm were considered eligible for inclusion in this systematic review (CRD42024521964). Studies describing only the oncologic outcomes, involving FST for cervical cancers less than 2 cm in size, and case reports were excluded. Results: Seventeen papers that met the abovementioned inclusion criteria were included in the present systematic review. In total, 443 patients with a cervical cancer larger than 2 cm were included in this systematic review. Eighty pregnancies occurred, with 24 miscarriages and 54 live births. Conclusions: FST appears to be a viable option for women of childbearing age diagnosed with cervical cancer larger than 2 cm. However, careful consideration is advised in interpreting these encouraging results, as they are subject to limitations, such as variability in study designs and potential biases. In addition, reproductive outcomes should be further cross-referenced with oncologic outcomes to clarify the potential risk–benefit ratio. It is critical to conduct further research using standardized approaches and larger participant groups to strengthen the validity of the conclusions drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]