Use of the endometriosis fertility index in daily practice: A prospective evaluation
To perform a prospective evaluation of postoperative fertility management using the endometriosis fertility index (EFI). This prospective non-interventional observational study was performed from January 2013 to February 2016 in a tertiary care university hospital and an assisted reproductive techno...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology 2017-12, Vol.219, p.28-34 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To perform a prospective evaluation of postoperative fertility management using the endometriosis fertility index (EFI).
This prospective non-interventional observational study was performed from January 2013 to February 2016 in a tertiary care university hospital and an assisted reproductive technology (ART) centre. In total, 196 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis-related infertility. Indications for surgery included pelvic pain (dysmenorrhoea, and/or deep dyspareunia), abnormal hysterosalpingogram, and failure to conceive after three or more superovulation cycles with or without intra-uterine insemination. Multidisciplinary fertility management followed the surgical diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. Three postoperative options were proposed to couples based on the EFI score: EFI score ≤4, ART (Option 1); EFI score 5–6, non-ART management for 4–6 months followed by ART (Option 2); or EFI score ≥7, non-ART management for 6–9 months followed by ART (Option 3). The main outcomes were non-ART pregnancy rates and cumulative pregnancy rates according to EFI score. Univariate and multivariate analyses with backward stepwise logistic regression were used to explain the occurrence of non-ART pregnancy after surgery for women with EFI scores ≥5. Adjustment was made for potential confounding variables that were significant (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0301-2115 1872-7654 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.10.001 |