Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of unilateral vs. bilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling (ULOD vs. BLOD) for improving fertility outcomes in infertile women with clomiphene-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) as well as its effect on ovarian reserve.
Methods: Searches were conducted on PubMed, ScienceDirect, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases from January 1984 to January 2017. Only randomized trials comparing ULOD with BLOD were included. The PRISMA Statement was followed. Main outcomes were ovulation and clinical pregnancy rates per woman randomized. Secondary outcomes were; live birth and miscarriage rates as well as postoperative serum anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) concentration and antral follicle count (AFC). Quality assessment was performed by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.
Results: Eight eligible trials (484 women) were analyzed. No significant difference was found in rates of ovulation (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47-1.11), clinical pregnancy (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.22-1.41), live birth (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.28-2.10), or miscarriage (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.33-2.84) when ULOD was compared with BLOD. The reduction in AMH was comparable between the two procedures (MD 0.64 ng/ml; 95% CI - 0.08 to 1.36). A significantly higher AFC at 6-month follow-up was found with dose-adjusted ULOD (MD 2.20; 95% CI 1.01-3.39).
Conclusions: After carefully weighing up the well-known benefits of BLOD against a potential risk to ovarian reserve, clinicians could be advised to offer the fixed-dose ULOD to their infertile patients with clomiphene-resistant PCOS. This is concordant with the "primum non nocere" principal if LOD will be envisaged.
Keywords: Ovulation and pregnancy; PCOS; Polycystic ovary syndrome; Unilateral ovarian diathermy; Unilateral ovarian drilling.