Effect of hemostatic method on ovarian reserve following laparoscopic endometrioma excision; comparison of suture, hemostatic sealant, and bipolar dessication. a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

We reviewed the literature to determine whether different hemostatic methods used following laparoscopic endometrioma excision have differing effects on ovarian reserve. We performed a systematic literature search using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations databases to identify studies comparing the rate of change in levels of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) at 3months after laparoscopic endometrioma excision using bipolar dessication (BD) or suturing/application of a hemostatic sealant (HS) for hemostasis. Abstracts of the annual meetings of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, and the American Association of Gynecological Laparoscopists were searched as well. A total of 712 articles were identified, of which 6 were included in the qualitative analysis. Four studies involving 213 women were included in the meta-analysis. Our qualitative analysis suggested that BD is more detrimental to ovarian reserve than alternative hemostatic methods. There is moderate-quality evidence favoring HS and low-quality evidence favoring sutures over BD. The meta-analysis also showed that alternative hemostatic methods are associated with significantly less decline in ovarian reserve compared with BD. The mean decline in serum AMH levels was 6.95% less with alternative hemostatic methods than with BD (95% CI, -13.0% to -0.9%; p=02) at 3months after surgery. According to the best available evidence, the use of BD should be cautiously limited, even avoided when possible, during endometrioma excision in women who desire to have children.