Pérez-Álvarez RME, Díaz-Franco EC, Amézquita-Vizcarra LE, Zamora-Escudero R, Aguayo-González P, Morales-Hernández FV

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 1-5
PDF size: 269.19 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To describe the prevalence of endometrial pathology by hysteroscopy among infertile patients in a tertiary referral hospital, from January 2015 to December 2016.
Materials and Methods: This is a descriptive, retrospective and observational study. The inclusion criteria were patients between 18 and 43 years of age, who had a hysteroscopy due to infertility. The exclusion criteria were patients from Reproductive Science Department who did not undergo hysteroscopy or for whom it failed. We used the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 Data in this study were analyzed using mean ± standard deviation or expressed as percentages.
Results: Four hundred forty infertile women underwent hysteroscopy. Data from physical patient records were retrieved. Demographic characteristics included age, BMI, type of infertility, years of infertility. Hysteroscopic findings were: normal uterine cavity 38.4%, abnormal 61.6%. Some patients had 2 or more findings: polyp or endometrial polypoid 34.3%, müllerian malformation 13.4%, synechia 10.7%, leiomyoma 7.3%, endometrial hyperplasia 1.4%, adenomyosis 0.9%, foreign body 0.9%. In 7.5%, spontaneous pregnancy occurred, 21.8% underwent assisted reproduction technique, achieving pregnancy in 34.3%.
Conclusions: Assessing of uterine cavity should be an indispensable requirement of infertile patients, since in this study more than half of them had abnormal hysteroscopic findings.

REFERENCES

1. El-Toukhy T, Campo R, Khalaf Y, et al. Hysteroscopy in recurrent in-vitro fertilisation failure (TROPHY): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10038):2614- 2621. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00258-0

2. Bakas P, et al. Role of hysteroscopy prior to assisted reproduction techniques. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014. 21(2): 233-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.07.023.

3. Viveros-Gallardo A, Alanís-Fuentes J. Hallazgos histeroscópicos en pacientes con diagnóstico de infertilidad. Ginecol Obstet Méx. 2016;84(12):743-49.

4. Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al. Efficacy of hysteroscopy in improving reproductive outcomes of infertile couples: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(4):479-96. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw008.

5. Capmas P, Pourcelot AG, Giral E, Fedida D, Fernandez H. Office hysteroscopy: A report of 2402 cases. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2016;45(5):445-50. doi: 10.1016/j. jgyn.2016.02.007.

6. Bosteels J, et al. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2015;2(2):CD009461. doi: 10.1002/14651858.

7. Pato-Mosquera M, et al. Indicaciones y resultados de la histeroscopia diagnóstica ambulatoria en el complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2013;81:382-88

8. Smit JG, Kasius JC, Eijkemans MJC, et al. Hysteroscopy before in-vitro fertilisation (inSIGHT): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England). 2016;387(10038):2622-29.

9. Medrano-Uribe FA, Enríquez-Pérez MM, Reyes-Muñoz E. Prevalencia de las alteraciones anatómicas uterinas en mujeres mexicanas con pérdida gestacional recurrente (PGR). Gac Med Mex. 2016;152(2):163-166.

10. Wadhwa L, Rani P, Bhatia P. Comparative Prospective Study of Hysterosalpingography and Hysteroscopy in Infertile Women. J Hum Reprod Sci 2017; 10:73-8. doi: 10.4103/ jhrs.JHRS_123_16

11. Fatemi HM, Kasius JC, Timmermans A, et al. Prevalence of unsuspected uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by office hysteroscopy prior to in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(8):1959-65. doi: 10.1093/humrep/ deq150.

12. Kasius JC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hysteroscopy screening for infertile women. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(6):619-26. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.015