4.7 Article

Effect of progestogens and combined oral contraceptives on nerve fibers in peritoneal endometriosis

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 92, 期 4, 页码 1234-1239

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1774

关键词

Endometriosis; nerve fibers; hormone therapy; peritoneal endometriotic lesions

资金

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate how progestogens and combined oral contraceptives change nerve fiber density in peritoneal endometriotic lesions and to identify the types of nerve fibers still present during hormone treatment. Design: Laboratory study using human tissue. Setting: University-based laboratory. Patient(s): Hormonally treated and untreated women with endometriosis undergoing laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, and curettage. Intervention(s): Biopsy samples from peritoneal endometriotic lesions in hormonally treated and untreated women with endometriosis. Main Outcome Measure(s): Types and density of nerve fibers were immunohistochemically determined in peritoneal endometriotic lesions from hormonally treated and untreated women with endometriosis. Result(s): The nerve fiber density (mean +/- standard deviation/mm(2)) in peritoneal endometriotic lesions from hormone-treated women with endometriosis (10.6 +/- 2.2/mm(2)) was statistically significantly lower than in peritoneal endometriotic lesions from untreated women with endometriosis (16.3 +/- 10.0/mm(2)). Nerve growth factor and nerve growth factor receptor p75 expression in peritoneal endometriotic lesions were slightly reduced in hormone-treated women with endometriosis compared with untreated women with endometriosis. Conclusion(s): Progestogens and combined oral contraceptives reduced nerve fiber density and nerve growth factor and nerve growth factor receptor p75 expression in peritoneal endometriotic lesions. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009; 92:1234-9. (C) 2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

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

4.7
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