4.7 Article

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling in polycystic ovary syndrome: efficacy of adjusted thermal dose based on ovarian volume

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 95, Issue 3, Pages 1115-1118

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.10.037

Keywords

PCOS; LOD; thermal dose; ovarian volume; reproductive outcome; adhesions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare reproductive outcome of adjusted thermal dose on the basis of ovarian volume versus fixed-puncture dosage in laparoscopic ovarian drilling. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: University Women's Health Center. Patient(s): One hundred twenty patients with polycystic ovary syndrome and clomiphene citrate resistance. Intervention(s): Patients were assigned randomly to two groups of 60 women each. Group A received an adjusted thermal dose based on ovarian volume with use of a new model for dose calculation (60 J/cm(3) of ovarian tissue), and group B received 600 J per ovary through four ovarian holes regardless of size. One month afterward, the hormonal profile was reevaluated, and second-look laparoscopy was performed in patients who had not conceived by 6 months to evaluate adnexal adhesions. Main Outcome Measure(s): Ovulation, conception, and early abortion rates, cycle rhythm, and adnexal adhesions. Result(s): More patients resumed regular cycles in group A than in group B (87.9% vs. 75.4%). The ovulation and pregnancy rates were significantly higher in group A than in group B (81.8% vs. 62.2% and 51.7% vs. 36.8%, respectively). There was no significant difference between groups in early miscarriage rate or postdrilling adhesions. Conclusion(s): Adjusted diathermy dose based on ovarian volume for laparoscopic ovarian drilling of polycystic ovary syndrome has a better reproductive outcome compared with fixed thermal dosage. (Fertil Steril (R) 2011; 95: 1115-8. (c) 2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available