Dataset Information

Pregnancy and Adverse Obstetric Outcomes After Hysteroscopic Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Although the randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the efficacy of hysteroscopic resection in women with uterine septum has not shown any significant correlation in recent research, motivation for deeper study remains insufficient. In this study, the objective was to determine pregnancy-related outcomes, along with adverse obstetric outcomes, following hysteroscopic resection and also to determine whether women with hysteroscopic resection bear the same outcomes as women with normal uterine cavities.

Search Methods

From January 1995 to February 2022, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify all studies published concerning the gestation outcomes of women with and without hysteroscopic resection while comparing the gestation outcomes of women after hysteroscopic resection and with a normal uterine cavity. Our primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR). The secondary outcomes were term delivery, preterm delivery, spontaneous miscarriage, malpresentation, cesarean section, and other adverse obstetric outcomes.

Results

22 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The control groups of 14 studies were treated women, and the control groups of the other 8 studies were patients bearing a normal uterine cavity. Hysteroscopic resection was related to a higher rate of term delivery (OR = 2.26, 95% CI, 1.26–4.05), and a lower rate of spontaneous abortion (OR = 0.50, 95% CI, 0.27–0.93), and a lower rate of malpresentation (OR = 0.31, 95% CI, 0.19–0.50). Nevertheless, in comparison with the normal uterus group, the rates of preterm birth, cesarean section, and postpartum hemorrhage after resection did not return to normal levels.

Conclusion

Hysteroscopic resection can effectively reduce the risk of abortion and malpresentation in patients possessing a uterine septum while increasing the term delivery rate. Although well-designed RCTs should confirm our meta-analysis, it still bears recommending to patients

SUBMITTER: Wu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9271824 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse outcomes of pregnancy after adjustment for at least minimal confounding factors.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesWeb of Science, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1 January 1990 to 1 November 2021.Review methodsCohort studies and control arms of trials reporting complications of pregnancy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus were eligible for inclusion. Based on the use of insulin, studies were divided into three subgroups: no insulin use (patients never used insulin during the course of the disease), insulin use (different proportions of patients were treated with insulin), and insulin use not reported. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the status of the country (developed or developing), quality of the study, diagnostic criteria, and screening method. Meta-regression models were applied based on the proportion of patients who had received insulin.Results156 studies with 7 506 061 pregnancies were included, and 50 (32.1%) showed a low or medium risk of bias. In studies with no insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, women with gestational diabetes mellitus had increased odds of caesarean section (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.32), preterm delivery (1.51, 1.26 to 1.80), low one minute Apgar score (1.43, 1.01 to 2.03), macrosomia (1.70, 1.23 to 2.36), and infant born large for gestational age (1.57, 1.25 to 1.97). In studies with insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, the odds of having an infant large for gestational age (odds ratio 1.61, 1.09 to 2.37), or with respiratory distress syndrome (1.57, 1.19 to 2.08) or neonatal jaundice (1.28, 1.02 to 1.62), or requiring admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (2.29, 1.59 to 3.31), were higher in women with gestational diabetes mellitus than in those without diabetes. No clear evidence was found for differences in the odds of instrumental delivery, shoulder dystocia, postpartum haemorrhage, stillbirth, neonatal death, low five minute Apgar score, low birth weight, and small for gestational age between women with and without gestational diabetes mellitus after adjusting for confounders. Country status, adjustment for body mass index, and screening methods significantly contributed to heterogeneity between studies for several adverse outcomes of pregnancy.ConclusionsWhen adjusted for confounders, gestational diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with pregnancy complications. The findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the adverse outcomes of pregnancy related to gestational diabetes mellitus. Future primary studies should routinely consider adjusting for a more complete set of prognostic factors.Review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021265837.

Project description:Background Several studies report the role of Regulatory T-cells (Tregs) in the pathophysiology of pregnancy adverse outcomes. Objective The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether there is an association between regulatory T cell levels and pregnancy adverse outcomes (PAOs), including pre-eclampsia and preterm birth (PTB). Method Literature searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Inclusion criteria were original articles (clinical trials, case-control studies and cohort studies) comparing Tregs, sampled from the decidua or maternal blood, in healthy pregnant women versus women with pre-eclampsia or PTB. The outcome was standardised mean difference (SMD) in Treg numbers. The tau-squared (Tau²), inconsistency index (I²), and chi-squared (χ²) test quantified heterogeneity among different studies. Analyses were performed in RevMan software V.5.4.0 for Mac using a random-effects model with outcome data reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205469). PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results From 4,085 unique studies identified, 36 were included in qualitative synthesis, and 34 were included in quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). In total, there were 1,783 participants in these studies: healthy controls=964, pre-eclampsia=759, PTB=60. Thirty-two studies compared Tregs in healthy pregnant women and women with pre-eclampsia, and 30 of these sampled Tregs from peripheral blood showing significantly higher Treg numbers in healthy pregnancies (SMD; 1.46; 95% CI, 1.03–1.88; I²=92%). Four studies sampled Tregs from the maternal decidua showing higher Tregs in healthy pregnancies (SMD, 0.76; 95% CI, -0.13–1.65; I²=84%). No difference was found in the number of Tregs between early versus late pre-eclampsia (SMD,-1.17; 95% CI, -2.79–0.44; I²=94%). For PTB, two studies compared Tregs sampled from the peripheral blood with a tendency for higher Tregs in healthy pregnancies but this did not reach significance (SMD, 2.18; 95% CI, -1.34–5.70; I²=96%). Subcohort analysis using Treg analysis (flow cytometry vs. qPCR vs. immunofluorescence tissue staining) showed similar associations. Conclusion Lower Tregs in pregnancy, sampled from the maternal peripheral blood, are associated with pre-eclampsia. There is a need for further studies to confirm a relationship between low Tregs and PTB. As the precise mechanisms by which Tregs may mediate pre-eclampsia and PTB remain unclear, further fundamental research is necessary to elucidate the underlying processes and highlight the causative link. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020205469.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of interpregnancy body mass index (BMI) change on pregnancy outcomes, including large-for-gestational-age babies (LGA), small-for-gestational-age babies (SGA), macrosomia, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and caesarean section (CS).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies.Data sourcesLiterature searches were performed across Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health and MIDIRS databases.Study selectionObservational cohort studies with participants parity from 0 to 1.Main outcome measuresAdjusted ORs (aORs) with 95% CIs were used to evaluate the association between interpregnancy BMI change on five outcomes.Results925 065 women with singleton births from parity 0 to 1 were included in the meta-analysis of 11 studies selected from 924 identified studies. A substantial increase in interpregnancy BMI (>3 BMI units) was associated with an increased risk of LGA (aOR 1.85, 95% CI 1.71 to 2.00, p<0.001), GDM (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.97 to 2.63, p<0.001), macrosomia (aOR 1.54, 95% CI 0.939 to 2.505) and CS (aOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.24, p<0.001) compared with the reference category, and a decreased risk of SGA (aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99, p=0.044). An interpregnancy BMI decrease was associated with a decreased risk of LGA births (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.90, p<0.001) and GDM (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03), and an increased risk of SGA (aOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.63, p=0.014). Women with a normal BMI (<25kg/m2) at first pregnancy who have a substantial increase in BMI between pregnancies had a higher risk of LGA (aOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.29) and GDM (aOR 3.10, 95% CI 2.74 to 3.50) when compared with a reference than women with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 at first pregnancy.ConclusionsGaining weight between pregnancies increases risk of developing GDM, CS and LGA, and reduces risk of SGA in the subsequent pregnancy. Losing weight between pregnancies reduces risk of GDM and LGA and increases risk of SGA. Weight stability between first and second pregnancy is advised in order to reduce risk of adverse outcomes.Trial registration numberCRD42016041299.

Project description:BackgroundDisparities in health outcomes between immigrant and native-origin populations, particularly pregnant women, pose significant challenges to healthcare systems. The aim of this systematic-review and meta-analysis was to investigate the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes among immigrant-women compared to native-origin women in the host country.MethodsPubMed (including MEDLINE), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to retrieve studies published in English language up to September 2020. All observational studies examining the prevalence of at least one of the short-term single pregnancy outcomes for immigrants who crossed international borders compared to native-origin pregnant population were included. The meta-prop method was used for the pooled-estimation of adverse pregnancy-outcomes' prevalence. For pool-effect estimates, the association between the immigration-status and outcomes of interest, the random-effects model was applied using the model described by DerSimonian and Laird. I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. The publication bias was assessed using the Harbord-test. Meta-regression was performed to explore the effect of geographical region as the heterogeneity source.FindingsThis review involved 11 320 674 pregnant women with an immigration-background and 56 102 698 pregnant women as the native-origin population. The risk of emergency cesarean section (Pooled-OR = 1.1, 95%CI = 1.0-1.2), shoulder dystocia (Pooled-OR = 1.1, 95%CI = 1.0-1.3), gestational diabetes mellites (Pooled-OR = 1.4, 95%CI = 1.2-1.6), small for gestational age (Pooled-OR=1.3, 95%CI = 1.1-0.4), 5-min Apgar less than 7 (Pooled-OR = 1.2, 95%CI = 1.0-1.3) and oligohydramnios (Pooled-OR = 1.8, 95%CI = 1.0-3.3) in the immigrant women were significantly higher than those with the native origin background. The immigrant women had a lower risk of labor induction (Pooled-OR = 0.8, 95%CI = 0.7-0.8), pregnancy induced hypertension (Pooled-OR = 0.6, 95%CI = 0.5-0.7) preeclampsia (Pooled-OR = 0.7, 95%CI = 0.6-0.8), macrosomia (Pooled-OR = 0.8, 95%CI = 0.7-0.9) and large for gestational age (Pooled-OR = 0.8, 95%CI = 0.7-0.8). Also, the risk of total and primary cesarean section, instrumental-delivery, preterm-birth, and birth-trauma were similar in both groups. According to meta-regression analyses, the reported ORs were not influenced by the country of origin.ConclusionThe relationship between the immigration status and adverse perinatal outcomes indicated a heterogenous pattern, but the immigrant women were at an increased risk of some important adverse pregnancy outcomes. Population-based studies with a focus on the various aspects of this phenomena are required to explain the source of these heterogenicities.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Abnormal placental cord insertion (PCI) includes marginal cord insertion (MCI) and velamentous cord insertion (VCI). VCI has been shown to be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the association of abnormal PCI and adverse pregnancy outcomes. METHODS:Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Databases were searched in December 2016 (from inception to December 2016). The reference lists of eligible studies were scrutinized to identify further studies. Potentially eligible studies were reviewed by two authors independently using the following inclusion criteria: singleton pregnancies, velamentous cord insertion, marginal cord insertion, and pregnancy outcomes. Case reports and series were excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Outcomes for meta-analysis were dichotomous and results are presented as summary risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS:Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review, all of which were assessed as good quality. Normal PCI and MCI were grouped together as non-VCI and compared with VCI in seven studies. Four studies compared MCI, VCI, and normal PCI separately. Two other studies compared MCI with normal PCI, and VCI was excluded from their analysis. Studies in this systematic review reported an association between abnormal PCI, defined differently across studies, with preterm birth, small for gestational age (SGA), low birthweight (<?2500 g), emergency cesarean delivery, and intrauterine fetal death. Four cohort studies comparing MCI, VCI, and normal PCI separately were included in a meta-analysis resulting in a statistically significant increased risk of emergency cesarean delivery for VCI (pooled RR 2.86, 95% CI 1.56-5.22, P =?0.0006) and abnormal PCI (pooled RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.33-2.36, P <?0.0001) compared to normal PCI. CONCLUSIONS:The available evidence suggests an association between abnormal PCI and emergency cesarean delivery. However, the number of studies with comparable definitions of abnormal PCI was small, limiting the analysis of other adverse pregnancy outcomes, and further research is required.

Project description:BackgroundWomen who undergo bariatric surgery prior to pregnancy are less likely to experience comorbidities associated with obesity such as gestational diabetes and hypertension. However, bariatric surgery, particularly malabsorptive procedures, can make patients susceptible to deficiencies in nutrients that are essential for healthy fetal development. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the association between pregnancy after bariatric surgery and adverse perinatal outcomes.Methods and findingsSearches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to June 2019, supplemented by hand-searching reference lists, citations, and journals. Observational studies comparing perinatal outcomes post-bariatric surgery to pregnancies without prior bariatric surgery were included. Outcomes of interest were perinatal mortality, congenital anomalies, preterm birth, postterm birth, small and large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Where data were available, results were subgrouped by type of bariatric surgery. We included 33 studies with 14,880 pregnancies post-bariatric surgery and 3,979,978 controls. Odds ratios (ORs) were increased after bariatric surgery (all types combined) for perinatal mortality (1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.85, p = 0.031), congenital anomalies (1.29, 95% CI 1.04-1.59, p = 0.019), preterm birth (1.57, 95% CI 1.38-1.79, p < 0.001), and NICU admission (1.41, 95% CI 1.25-1.59, p < 0.001). Postterm birth decreased after bariatric surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.60, p < 0.001). ORs for SGA increased (2.72, 95% CI 2.32-3.20, p < 0.001) and LGA decreased (0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.41, p < 0.001) after gastric bypass but not after gastric banding. Babies born after bariatric surgery (all types combined) weighed over 200 g less than those born to mothers without prior bariatric surgery (weighted mean difference -242.42 g, 95% CI -307.43 to -177.40 g, p < 0.001). There was low heterogeneity for all outcomes (I2 < 40%) except LGA. Limitations of our study are that as a meta-analysis of existing studies, the results are limited by the quality of the included studies and available data, unmeasured confounders, and the small number of studies for some outcomes.ConclusionsIn our systematic review of observational studies, we found that bariatric surgery, especially gastric bypass, prior to pregnancy was associated with increased risk of some adverse perinatal outcomes. This suggests that women who have undergone bariatric surgery may benefit from specific preconception and pregnancy nutritional support and increased monitoring of fetal growth and development. Future studies should explore whether restrictive surgery results in better perinatal outcomes, compared to malabsorptive surgery, without compromising maternal outcomes. If so, these may be the preferred surgery for women of reproductive age.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017051537.