Transvaginal needle versus laparoscopic ovarian drilling in hormonal profile and pregnancy outcomes of polycystic ovary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction Vol. 52; no. 6; p. 102606
• Main Authors: Baradwan, Saeed, Abuzaid, Mohammed, Sabban, Hussein, Alshahrani, Majed Saeed, Khadawardi, Khalid, AlSghan, Rayan, Alnoury, Albaraa, Bukhari, Ibtihal Abdulaziz, Alyousef, Abdullah, Belancic, Andrej, Persad, Emma, Abu-Zaid, Ahmed
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: France Elsevier Masson SAS 01.06.2023
• Subjects: Female; Humans; Laparoscopic ovarian drilling; Laparoscopy - methods; Ovulation; Polycystic ovary syndrome; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome - complications; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome - surgery; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Rate; Transvaginal ovarian drilling; Pregnancy; Polycystic ovary syndrome; Transvaginal ovarian drilling; Ovulation; Laparoscopic ovarian drilling
• ISSN: 2468-7847; 2468-7847
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2023.102606

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a prevalent hormonal disorder distinguished by a persistent absence of ovulation. Ovarian drilling is a recognized therapeutic approach for PCOS patients who are unresponsive to medication and can be performed through invasive laparoscopic access or less-invasive transvaginal access. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of transvaginal ultrasound -guided ovarian needle drilling with conventional laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) in patients with PCOS. PUBMED, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from articles published from inception to January 2023. We include RCTs of PCOS that compared transvaginal ovarian drilling and LOD and reported on ovulation and pregnancy rates as the main outcome variable. We evaluated study quality using the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and the certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the GRADE approach. We registered the protocol prospectively in PROSPERO (CRD42023397481). Six RCTs including 899 women with PCOS met the inclusion criteria. LOD was found to significantly reduce anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) (SMD: -0.22; 95% CI: -0.38, -0.05; I2 = 39.85%) and antral follicle count (AFC) (SMD: -1.22; 95% CI: -2.26, -0.19; I2 = 97.55%) compared to transvaginal ovarian drilling. Our findings also indicated that LOD significantly increased the ovulation rate by 25% compared to transvaginal ovarian drilling (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.54; I2 = 64.58%). However, we found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of follicle stimulating hormone (SMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.26, 0.33; I2 = 61.53%), luteinizing hormone (SMD: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.90, 0.77; I2 = 94.92%), and pregnancy rate (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.98; I2 = 50.49%). LOD significantly lowers circulating AMH and AFC and significantly increases ovulation rate in PCOS patients compared to transvaginal ovarian drilling. As transvaginal ovarian drillingremains a less-invasive, more cost-effective, and simpler alternative, further studies are warranted to compare these two techniques in large cohorts, with a particular focus on ovarian reserve and pregnancy outcomes.