Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/9000
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBarbosa, M.W.-
dc.contributor.authorSotiriadis, Alexandros-
dc.contributor.authorPapatheodorou, Stefania-
dc.contributor.authorMijatovic, Velja-
dc.contributor.authorNastri, Carolina Oliveira-
dc.contributor.authorMartins, Wellington-
dc.contributor.otherΠαπαθεοδώρου, Στεφανία-
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-11T10:27:19Z-
dc.date.available2017-01-11T10:27:19Z-
dc.date.issued2016-11-01-
dc.identifier.citationUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2016, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 556-565en_US
dc.identifier.issn09607692-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/9000-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Essure® has been tested as an alternative treatment for hydrosalpinx before embryo transfer (ET) in women undergoing assisted reproduction techniques. However, the persistence of a foreign body inside the uterine cavity might have a negative impact on the outcome of pregnancy. The present systematic review aimed at identifying, appraising and summarizing the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of using Essure prior to ET for women with hydrosalpinx. Methods: We searched for studies in PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov and the reference lists of eligible studies. All studies including at least 10 women with hydrosalpinx who received Essure, any other intervention or no treatment prior to ET were considered eligible. Study selection, data extraction and evaluation of the risk of bias were performed independently by two authors. Study outcomes were miscarriage per clinical pregnancy, singleton preterm birth per singleton live birth and live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy per ET. The pooled results for each outcome and intervention were summarized as proportions with their respective 95% CIs, using a random-effects model. Results: Our electronic search of databases was performed on 7 November 2015, and 26 studies with 43 study arms were considered eligible: eight study arms evaluating Essure; seven assessing tubal aspiration; seven appraising effects of no treatment; 12 evaluating salpingectomy; two assessing tubal division; and seven evaluating tubal occlusion. When compared with women who had no intervention, women with Essure had a higher clinical pregnancy rate per ET (36% (95% CI, 0–43%) vs 13% (95% CI, 9–17%)). When compared with women who had other interventions, women with Essure had a higher miscarriage rate per clinical pregnancy (38% (95% CI, 27–49%) vs 15% (95% CI, 10–19%)). Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that, although Essure prior to ET in women with hydrosalpinx improves the chance of achieving a clinical pregnancy compared with no intervention, it is associated with a higher rate of miscarriage when compared with the other interventions. Although this evidence is based on observational studies, we believe that salpingectomy should be the first option for women who are eligible for videolaparoscopy. However, it is still premature to make recommendations for women who are not eligible for surgery, and randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify which is the best treatment alternative in such a scenario. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecologyen_US
dc.rights© Wileyen_US
dc.subjectInfertilityen_US
dc.subjectIVFen_US
dc.subjectEmbryo transferen_US
dc.subjectAssisted reproductive techniqueen_US
dc.subjectEssureen_US
dc.subjectHydrosalpinxen_US
dc.titleHigh miscarriage rate in women treated with Essure® for hydrosalpinx before embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.doi10.1002/uog.15960en_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Sao Pauloen_US
dc.collaborationAristotle University of Thessalonikien_US
dc.collaborationCyprus University of Technologyen_US
dc.collaborationVU University Medical Centeren_US
dc.subject.categoryBasic Medicineen_US
dc.journalsHybrid Open Accessen_US
dc.countryBrazilen_US
dc.countryGreeceen_US
dc.countryCyprusen_US
dc.countryThe Netherlandsen_US
dc.subject.fieldMedical and Health Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/uog.15960en_US
dc.relation.issue5en_US
dc.relation.volume48en_US
cut.common.academicyear2016-2017en_US
dc.identifier.spage556en_US
dc.identifier.epage565en_US
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypearticle-
crisitem.journal.journalissn1469-0705-
crisitem.journal.publisherWiley-
crisitem.author.deptCyprus International Institute for Environmental and Public Health-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Health Sciences-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-9451-9094-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Health Sciences-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

25
checked on Nov 9, 2023

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations 50

16
Last Week
0
Last month
1
checked on Oct 29, 2023

Page view(s) 50

461
Last Week
6
Last month
29
checked on Mar 11, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in KTISIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.