4.0 Review

Fibroids in infertility - consensus statement from ACCEPT (Australasian CREI Consensus Expert Panel on Trial evidence)

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01300.x

关键词

assisted reproductive technology; fibroids; infertility; leiomyoma; myomectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fibroid management is surrounded by considerable controversy and uncertainty. This paper summarises the consensus developed by a group of Australasian subspecialists in reproductive endocrinology and infertility (the ACCEPT group) on the evidence concerning the impact and management of fibroids in infertility. The location of a fibroid within the uterus influences its effect on fertility. Subserosal fibroids do not appear to impact on fertility outcomes. Intramural (IM) fibroids may be associated with reduced fertility and an increased miscarriage rate (MR); however, there is insufficient evidence to inform whether myomectomy for IM fibroids improves fertility outcomes. Submucosal fibroids are associated with reduced fertility and an increased MR, and myomectomy for submucosal fibroids appears likely to improve fertility outcomes. The relative effect of multiple or different sized fibroids on fertility outcomes is uncertain, as is the relative usefulness of myomectomy in these situations. It is recommended that fibroids with suspected cavity involvement are defined by magnetic resonance imaging, sonohysterography or hysteroscopy because modalities such as transvaginal ultrasound and hysterosalpingography lack appropriate sensitivity and specificity. Medical management of fibroids delays efforts to conceive and is not recommended for the management of infertility associated with fibroids. Newer treatments such as uterine artery embolisation, radiofrequency ablation, bilateral uterine artery ligation, magnetic resonance-guided focussed ultrasound surgery and fibroid myolysis require further investigation prior to their establishment in the routine management of fibroid-associated infertility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据