4.6 Article

Impact of perioperative use of GnRH agonist or dienogest on ovarian reserve after cystectomy for endometriomas: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12958-021-00866-2

关键词

Anti-Mullerian hormone; Cystectomy; Endometriomas; Ovarian reserve

资金

  1. Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that DNG is more effective than GnRHa in preserving ovarian reserve after cystectomy for ovarian endometrioma. This is achieved through reducing the inflammatory response during the perioperative period and other endometriosis-related inflammatory reactions.
Background: Ovarian endometrioma is a common gynecological disease that is often treated with surgery or hormonal treatment. Ovarian cystectomy, a surgical procedure for ovarian endometrioma, can result in impaired ovarian reserve. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of hormonal treatment [gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) or dienogest (DNG)] for preserving ovarian reserve after cystectomy for ovarian endometrioma. The primary endpoint was the level of serum Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a marker of ovarian reserve. Results: Before and after laparoscopic surgery, 22 patients in the GnRHa group and 27 patients in the DNG group were administered hormonal treatment for a total of 4 months. After 1-year follow-up, >60% of the patients in the DNG group retained over 70% of their pretreatment AMH levels, whereas no patient in the GnRHa group retained their AMH levels after cystectomy (P < 0.01). Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a key cytokine involved in inflammation. Compared with the GnRHa group, patients in the DNG group had lower IL-6 levels at the end of treatment. Conclusions: Our data revealed that DNG is more effective than GnRHa in preserving ovarian reserve after cystectomy of ovarian endometrioma. This is achieved through the reduction of the inflammatory response during the perioperative period and other endometriosis-related inflammatory reactions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据