Obstetrical outcome in the third trimester after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis

Intrauterine adhesions (IUA) are a major challenge for surgeons treating women in their reproductive years and have been the focus of scientific societies assembled to increase surgeon’s awareness on adhesion-related complications. Their management was an object of debate in the “Adhesion Session” of the Special Interest Adhesion Research Group of the European Society of Gynecological Endoscopy (ESGE) and the Anti-adhesions in Gynaecology Expert Panel-group (ANGEL), during the Annual Meeting of the ESGE, Vienna, 7-10.10.2018 (1). The evidence about reproductive outcomes after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis and IUA prevention is limited, therefore, we thank Qing Feng et al. (2) for their effort to report the obstetrical outcomes of women with a history of hysteroscopic adhesiolysis (HA).

This retrospective analysis showed that of 21,098 third trimester deliveries, 171 (0.81%) births occurred after HA; of which 5.85% were multiple births, 1.75% required operative vaginal delivery and 2.92% presented intrauterine fetal death. Among women with singleton live term births, Qing Feng et al. found a significantly higher incidence of obstetrical complications in the case group (146 women with HA) when compared with the control group (292 women with a negative history of HA), including abnormal placentation (71.2% vs. 45.2%), postpartum hemorrhage (8.9% vs. 1.0%), and a higher cesarean section rate (54.8% vs. 28.8%). Interestingly, the authors report that obstetric outcomes were significantly different (P<0.05) within patients who presented with severe adhesions at HA. Patients with severe IUA delivered 1 week earlier, suffered more abnormal placentation-related complications such as placentae previa, retained placenta, and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Additionally, their newborns had significantly lower Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes after birth.

However, neither the prevalence of amenorrhea, spontaneous and elective terminations of each group or the pregnancy rate (PR) according to IUA severity were presented. Moreover, the authors did not report any information about the techniques used for HA or the use of adjuvant measures to prevent IUA reoccurrence. It is known that IUA develop as a result of certain conditions and procedures, when the basalis layer is disrupted during intrauterine operations and thereafter the functional layer is replaced by an inactive epithelial monolayer, resulting in uterine cavity distortion, abnormal placentation, and poor reproductive outcomes (1). Nevertheless, a prospective study of Sanad et al. (3) shows that fertility outcomes are significantly affected by the degree of IUA and are not related with the bleeding pattern before HA. A meta-analysis by Konci et al. (4), comparing various adjunctive postoperative treatments in patients receiving hormone therapy, found that the use of Foley catheter or amnion graft as an adjunctive therapy after HA failed to add benefits (OR 1.55; 95% CI: 0.60–3.99).

In addition, it would have been helpful that authors provide information about IUA location. A prospective observational study made by Zhao et al. (5) showed that the location and extent of adhesions are independent parameters related to the reproductive outcome for fertility-desiring women (P=0.011 and P=0.003, respectively). Furthermore, information regarding the number of HA patients underwent, before becoming pregnant, would have been of value to know. Regarding this, a retrospective Chinese study conducted by Xu et al. (6), showed that the pregnancy rate (PR) and live birth rate (LBR) were significant higher in the group which received adhesiolysis less than three times (P=0.027, OR =2.969), and when second hysteroscopy was performed within 2 months (53.0% PR and 71.5% LBR; P<0.05).

A recent metaanalysis of 54 studies and 4640 women performed by Guo et al. (7), found that, when analyzed according to adhesion severity (American fertility society classification), patients with severe IUA had a lower PR (28.7 vs. 71.3%). This was significantly lower in the case of women with severe adhesions compared to women with mild adhesions (Pooled PR 50.7%; 95% CI: 49.1 to 52.3). Another prospective study performed by Chen et al. (8) examining 332 Chinese women who had a completely restored uterine cavity after HA, reported lower overall conception rates in the group of severe IUA (mild, 60.7%; moderate, 53.4%; severe, 25%). Additionally, Xu et al. (6) found that the following are risk factors for infertility in patients with severe IUAs and amenorrhea: age >32 years (P=0.002, OR =3.442), >2 surgeries (P=0.027, OR =2.969), cervical canal adhesions (P=0.047, OR =2.112), and disease course >6 months (P=0.037, OR 2.335).

Despite the above-mentioned limitations of the study, the interesting results of authors highlight the importance of adhesion prevention during intrauterine procedures. As the authors recommend, because of their high risks of placental-related complications, physicians should give special attention to pregnant women who conceived after HA, especially those with history of severe IUA. Furthermore, the risk of post-operative adhesions could be systematically discussed with any patient scheduled for intrauterine surgery prior to obtaining her informed consent. At the same time, in order to fulfill their duty of care towards patients undergoing intrauterine surgery, gynecologists should use good surgical techniques and practice postoperative adhesions prevention in gynecological surgery (9) by adopting a routine adhesion reduction strategy (10,11), at the very least for patients undergoing high-risk of adhesion surgeries like adhesiolysis, myomectomy or septum resection . Further efforts are required to establish a universal IUA classification scheme as well as a prognostic scoring system to identify women at high risk of postoperative adhesions for advising those who could benefit most from the use of antiadhesion methods.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm.2020.03.117). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Torres-De La Roche LA, Campo R, Devassy R, et al. Adhesions and anti-adhesion systems highlights. Facts Views Vis ObGyn 2019;11:137-49. [PubMed]
2. Feng Q, Gao B, Huang H, et al. Obstetrical outcome in the third trimester after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. Ann Transl Med 2020;8:51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Sanad AS, Aboulfotouh ME. Hysteroscopic adhesiolysis: efficacy and safety. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016;294:411-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Konci R, Caminsky N, Tulandi T, et al. Supplements to conventional treatment after hysteroscopic lysis of intrauterine adhesions: A systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2019. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Zhao J, Chen Q, Cai D, et al. Dominant factors affecting reproductive outcomes of fertility-desiring young women with intrauterine adhesions. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017;295:923-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Xu W, Zhang Y, Yang Y, et al. Effect of early second-look hysteroscopy on reproductive outcomes after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis in patients with intrauterine adhesion, a retrospective study in China. Int J Surg 2018;50:49-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Guo EJ, Chung JPW, Poon LCY, et al. Reproductive outcomes after surgical treatment of Asherman syndrome: A systematic review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2019;59:98-114. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Chen L, Zhang H, Wang Q, et al. Reproductive outcomes in patients with intrauterine adhesions following hysteroscopic adhesiolysis: Experience from the largest women's hospital in China. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;24:299-304. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. De Wilde RL, Alvarez J, Brölmann H, et al. Adhesion prevention in hysteroscopic, laparoscopic and open gynaecological surgery: the 2016 expert recommendations on adhesion prophylaxis. Gynecol Obstet 2017;7:428.
10. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Calagna G, Scognamiglio M, et al. Prevention of intrauterine post-surgical adhesions in hysteroscopy. A systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;203:182-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Elevating AAGL. Gynecologic Surgery. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines on intrauterine adhesions developed in collaboration with the European Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE). Gynecol Surg 2017;14:6. [Crossref] [PubMed]