SURGICAL-TREATMENT OF ENDOMETRIOSIS-ASSOCIATED INFERTILITY - METAANALYSIS COMPARED WITH SURVIVAL ANALYSIS

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate the role of surgery in the treatment of endometriosis associated with infertility. STUDY DESIGN: We used a prospective cohort analysis of pregnancy rates and variables affecting pregnancy rates for surgical, medical, and no treatment. Our studies were combined with those reported by Hughes et al. (Fertil Steril 1993;59:963-70), and the meta-analysis was expanded to include additional comparisons. Treatment was performed by a single surgeon in a referral reproductive endocrinology and surgery private practice. Results from 579 women with endometriosis and infertility in our study and the meta-analysis of 25 studies by Hughes et al. were examined. Interventions consisted of no treatment, medical treatment, or surgical treatment by laparoscopy or laparotomy. The main outcome measure was pregnancy rates. RESULTS: For minimal and mild disease, no treatment, laparoscopy, and laparotomy had equivalent 3-year estimated cumulative life-table pregnancy rates (67% +/- 12%, 68% +/- 4%, and 74% +/- 8%, respectively) that were higher than medical treatment pregnancy rates (Breslow p = 0.003). For moderate and severe disease, all but II patients were treated surgically. The 3-year estimated cumulative life-table pregnancy rates were 44% +/- 6% for 120 laparoscopy cases and 62% +/- 6% for 102 laparotomy cases (Breslow p = 0.054). For endometriomas, 48 laparoscopy patients had a 3-year estimated cumulative life-table pregnancy rate of 52% +/- 9% and 52 laparotomy patients had a 3-year estimated cumulative life-table pregnancy rate of 46% +/- 9% (Breslow p = 0.48). For 28 patients with complete cul-de-sac obliteration, the 3-year estimated cumulative life-table pregnancy rates were 30% +/- 14% after laparoscopy and 24% +/- 12% after laparotomy (Breslow p = 0.084). Comparison of our results with the expanded meta-analysis revealed deficiencies in the design of meta-analysis studies and the impact of our using life-table pregnancy rates controlled for factors influencing outcome (survival analysis with fixed covariates) rather than the simple pregnancy rates used in the meta-analysis. Benefits of sophisticated statistical techniques, including propensity scores, to adjust for noncomparability of groups in prospective cohort studies were identified. CONCLUSION: Both our study and the meta-analysis show that either no treatment or surgery is superior to medical treatment for minimal and mild endometriosis associated with infertility. For moderate and severe disease, surgery is usually used. In these patients experienced surgeons utilizing good clinical judgment can achieve results at operative laparoscopy at least equivalent to those at laparotomy, even in cases involving endometriomas and complete cul-de-sac obliteration. Prospective randomized trials should be performed to confirm these findings.