Endometriosis: Farquhar CM

Farquhar CM. · No affiliation provided · Med J Aust. · Pubmed #18673095 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Latthe PM, Proctor ML, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Khan KS. · Academic Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. · Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. · Pubmed #17230282 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways in primary and secondary dysmenorrhea. Data sources. The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (9 June 2004), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to Nov. 2003), EMBASE (1980 to Nov. 2003), CINAHL (1982 to Oct. 2003), MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, the citation lists of review articles and included trials, and contact with the corresponding author of each included trial. REVIEW METHODS: The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of uterosacral nerve ablation or presacral neurectomy (both open and laparoscopic procedures) for the treatment of dysmenorrhea. The main outcome measures were pain relief and adverse effects. Two reviewers extracted data on characteristics of the study quality and the population, intervention, and outcome independently. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review. There were two trials with open presacral neurectomy; all other trials used laparoscopic techniques. For the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea, laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation at 12 months was better when compared to a control or no treatment (OR 6.12; 95% CI 1.78-21.03). The comparison of laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation with presacral neurectomy for primary dysmenorrhea showed that at 12 months follow-up, presacral neurectomy was more effective (OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.03-0.32). In secondary dysmenorrhea, along with laparoscopic surgical treatment of endometriosis, the addition of laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation did not improve the pain relief (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.43-1.39), while presacral neurectomy did (OR 3.14; 95% CI 1.59-6.21). Adverse events were more common for presacral neurectomy than procedures without presacral neurectomy (OR 14.6; 95% CI 5-42.5). CONCLUSION: The evidence for nerve interruption in the management of dysmenorrhea is limited. Methodologically sound and sufficiently powered randomized controlled trials are needed.

Abou-Setta AM, Al-Inany HG, Farquhar CM. · The Egyptian IVF-ET Center, Biostatistics & Information Technology, 3, Street 161, Hadayek El Maadi, Cairo, Egypt. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #17054236 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Various options exist for treating endometriosis, including ovarian suppression therapy, surgical treatment or a combination of these strategies. Surgical treatment of endometriosis sets out to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore anatomy by division of adhesions. The aim of medical therapy is to inhibit growth of endometriotic implants by suppression of ovarian steroids and induction of a hypo-estrogenic state. Postoperative treatment with a hormone-releasing intrauterine system, using levonorgestrel (LNG-IUS), has been suggested. OBJECTIVES: To determine if postoperative use of an LNG-IUS in women with endometriosis improves pain symptoms associated with menstruation and reduces recurrence compared with treatment with surgery only, placebo or systemic hormones. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched: (1) Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials; (2) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1); (3) MEDLINE (1966 to January 2006) and EMBASE (1980 to January 2006); (4) National Research Register (NRR). (5) The citation lists of relevant publications, review articles, abstracts of scientific meetings and included studies were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they compared women undergoing any type of surgical treatment for endometriosis with uterine preservation then randomized to LNG-IUS insertion within two to three months versus no treatment, placebo (inert IUD) or systemic treatment. Diagnostic laparoscopy alone was excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (AM Abou-Setta and HG Al-Inany) independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. Statistical analysis was performed in accordance with the statistical guidelines developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. Data extracted from the trials was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. For binary data, the overall common odds ratio (OR) (that is, the odds of having clinical symptoms) and the risk difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. MAIN RESULTS: In one small randomized controlled trial (RCT) there was a statistically significant reduction in the recurrence of painful periods in the LNG-IUS group compared with the control group receiving a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist (OR 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.75). The proportion of women who were satisfied with their treatment was higher in the LNG-IUS group than in the control group but this difference did not reach statistical difference (OR 3.00, 0.79 to 11.44). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: One small study has shown that postoperative use of the LNG-IUS reduces the recurrence of painful periods in women who have had surgery for endometriosis. There is a need for further well-designed RCTs of this approach.

Proctor ML, Latthe PM, Farquhar CM, Khan KS, Johnson NP. · Department of Corrections, Psychological Service, PO Box 302 457, North Harbour, Auckland, New Zealand 1310. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #16235288 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhoea is the occurrence of painful menstrual cramps of uterine origin and is a very common gynaecological complaint with negative effect on a sufferer's quality of life. Medical therapy for dysmenorrhoea includes oral contraceptive pills (OCP) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) which both act by suppressing prostaglandin levels. While these treatments are very successful there is still a 20 to 25% failure rate and surgery has been an option for such cases. Uterine nerve ablation (UNA) and presacral neurectomy (PSN) are two surgical treatments that have become increasingly utilised in recent years due to advances in laparoscopic procedures. These procedures both interrupt the majority of the cervical sensory pain nerve fibres. Observational studies have supported the use of these procedures for primary dysmenorrhoea. However, both operations only partially interrupt the cervical sensory nerve fibres in the pelvic area and, therefore, this type of surgery may not always benefit women with dysmenorrhoea. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways as treatment for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea, and to determine the most effective surgical treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched 9 June 2004), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to Nov 2003), EMBASE (1980 to Nov 2003), and CINAHL (1982 to Oct 2003). Attempts were also made to identify trials from the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the citation lists of review articles and included trials. In most cases the first or corresponding author of each included trial was contacted for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of surgical techniques of interruption of the pelvic nerve pathways (using both open and laparoscopic procedures) for the treatment of primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. The main outcome measures were pain relief and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eleven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified that initially appeared to fulfil the inclusion criteria for this review. Two trials were subsequently excluded (Garcia Leon 2003; Sutton 1991). Of the remaining nine trials, eight were included in the meta-analysis. The results of one trial were included in the text of the review for discussion because the data were not available in a form that allowed them to be combined in the meta-analysis. Five trials investigated laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA), two trials laparoscopic presacral neurectomy (LPSN) and two open presacral neurectomy (PSN). MAIN RESULTS: For the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea there was some evidence of the effectiveness of laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) when compared to a control or no treatment. The comparison between LUNA and laparoscopic presacral neurectomy (LPSN) for primary dysmenorrhoea showed no significant difference in pain relief in the short term; however, long-term LPSN was shown to be significantly more effective than LUNA. For the treatment of secondary dysmenorrhoea six identified RCTs addressed endometriosis and one included women with uterine myomas. The treatment of LUNA combined with surgical treatment of endometrial implants versus surgical treatment of endometriosis alone showed that the addition of LUNA did not aid pain relief. For PSN combined with endometriosis treatment versus endometriosis treatment alone there was an overall difference in pain relief although the data suggests this may be specific to laparoscopy and for midline abdominal pain only. Adverse events were significantly more common for presacral neurectomy; however, the majority were complications such as constipation, which may spontaneously improve. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of nerve interruption in the management of dysmenorrhoea, regardless of cause. Future methodologically sound and sufficiently powered RCTs should be undertaken.

Hickey M, Farquhar CM. · UWA School of Women's and Infants' Health, University of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, 374 Bagot Road, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia. · Med J Aust. · Pubmed #12797850 links to  free full text

Abstract: There is evidence from well designed randomised controlled trials that modern medical and conservative surgical therapies (including endometrial ablation) are effective treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding for many women. Submucous fibroids may be resected directly via the hysteroscope, reducing menstrual bleeding, although data are available only from case series. Endometriosis is common, may also occur in young women and may present with atypical or non-cyclical symptoms; conservative laparoscopic surgery increases fecundity and reduces dysmenorrhoea and dyspareunia. Randomised trials of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system in women with menorrhagia have shown that hysterectomy can be avoided in 80% of cases, and that this system is an effective therapy for menorrhagia. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system may also be useful for managing symptoms of endometriosis, adenomyosis and endometrial hyperplasia, based on observational data.

Farquhar CM. · Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National Women's Hospital, Private Bag 92 189, Auckland 3, New Zealand. · BMJ. · Pubmed #10827052 links to  free full text

Abstract: DEFINITION: Endometriosis is characterised by ectopic endometrial tissue, which can cause dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia, non-cyclical pelvic pain, and subfertility. Diagnosis is made by laparoscopy. Most endometrial deposits are found in the pelvis (ovaries, peritoneum, uterosacral ligaments, pouch of Douglas, and rectovaginal septum). Extrapelvic deposits, including those in the umbilicus and diaphragm, are rare. Endometriomas are cysts of endometriosis within the ovary. INCIDENCE/PREVALENCE: In asymptomatic women, the prevalence ranges from 2% to 22%, depending on the diagnostic criteria used and the populations studied. In women with dysmenorrhoea, the incidence of endometriosis ranges from 40% to 60%, and in women with subfertility it ranges from 20% to 30%. The severity of symptoms and the probability of diagnosis increase with age. Incidence peaks at about age 40. Symptoms and laparoscopic appearance do not always correlate. AETIOLOGY: The cause is unknown. Risk factors include early menarche and late menopause. Embryonic cells may give rise to deposits in the umbilicus, while retrograde menstruation may deposit endometrial cells in the diaphragm. Oral contraceptives reduce the risk of endometriosis, and this protective effect persists for up to a year after their discontinuation. PROGNOSIS: We found one small randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which repeat laparoscopy was performed in the women treated with placebo. Over 12 months, endometrial deposits resolved spontaneously in a quarter, deteriorated in nearly half, and were unchanged in the remainder. AIMS: To relieve pain (dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia, and other pelvic pain) and to improve fertility, with minimal adverse effects. OUTCOMES: American Fertility Society scores for size and number of deposits; recurrence rates; time between stopping treatment and recurrence; rate of adverse effects of treatment. In women with pain: relief of pain, assessed by visual analogue scale and subjective improvement. In women with subfertility: cumulative pregnancy rate, live birth rate. In women undergoing surgery: ease of surgical intervention (rated as easy, average, difficult, or very difficult).

Wilson ML, Farquhar CM, Sinclair OJ, Johnson NP. · Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National Women's Hospital, Claude Road, Epsom, Auckland, New Zealand, 1003. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796834 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhoea is the occurrence of painful menstrual cramps of uterine origin and is a very common gynaecological complaint. Medical therapy for dysmenorrhoea includes oral contraceptive pills (OCP) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) which both act by suppressing prostaglandin levels. While these treatments are very successful there is still a 20-25% failure rate and surgery has been an option for cases of dysmenorrhoea that fail to respond to medical therapy. Uterine nerve ablation (UNA) and presacral neurectomy (PSN) are two surgical treatments that have become increasingly utilised in recent years. These procedures both interrupt the majority of the cervical sensory nerve fibres, thus diminishing uterine pain. Uncontrolled studies have supported the use of these procedures for primary dysmenorrhoea however both operations only partially interrupt some of the cervical sensory nerve fibres in the pelvic area; therefore dysmenorrhoea associated with additional pelvic pathology may not always benefit from this type of surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways as treatment for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea, and to determine the most effective surgical treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were performed to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of review articles and handsearching. In most cases, the first or corresponding author of each included trial was contacted for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of surgical techniques of interruption of the pelvic nerve pathways (both open and laparoscopic procedures) for the treatment of primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea. The main outcome measures were pain relief and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seven RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. One trial (Sutton 1994) was excluded because another treatment was given in combination with destruction of pelvic nerve pathways and the effects of these two treatments could not be separated. Of the remaining six trials, three were included in the meta-analysis (Chen 1996, Candiani 1992, Lichten 1987). The results of the other three trials (Dover 1999, Tjaden 1990, Vercellini 1997) were included in the text of the review for discussion because the data were not available in a form that allowed them to be combined in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: For the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea there is some evidence of the effectiveness of uterine nerve ablation (UNA) when compared to a control of no treatment. The comparison between UNA with presacral neurectomy (PSN) for primary dysmenorrhoea showed no significant difference in pain relief in the short term, however long term PSN was shown to be significantly more effective. For the treatment of secondary dysmenorrhoea the identified RCTs addressed only endometriosis. The treatment of UNA combined with surgical treatment of endometrial implants versus surgical treatment of endometriosis alone showed that the addition of UNA did not aid pain relief. For PSN combined with endometriosis treatment versus endometriosis treatment alone there was also no overall difference in pain relief, although the data suggests a significant difference in relief of midline abdominal pain. Adverse events were significantly more common for presacral neurectomy, however the majority were complications such as constipation, which may spontaneously improve. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of nerve interruption in the management of dysmenorrhoea, regardless of cause. Future RCTs should be undertaken.

Johnson NP, Farquhar CM, Crossley S, Yu Y, Van Peperstraten AM, Sprecher M, Suckling J. · Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National Women's Hospital, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. · BJOG. · Pubmed #15327610 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) for chronic pelvic pain in women with endometriosis and women with no laparoscopic evidence of endometriosis. DESIGN: A prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: Single-centre, secondary-level gynaecology outpatient service and tertiary-level pelvic pain and endometriosis outpatient service in Auckland, New Zealand. POPULATION: One hundred and twenty-three women undergoing laparoscopy for investigation and management of chronic pelvic pain, 56 with no laparoscopic evidence of endometriosis and 67 with endometriosis. METHODS: Women were randomised from the two populations, firstly those with no evidence of endometriosis and secondly those undergoing laparoscopic surgical treatment for endometriosis, to receive LUNA or no LUNA. Participant and assessor blinding was employed. Follow up for pain outcomes was undertaken at 24 hours, 3 months and 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in non-menstrual pelvic pain, dysmenorrhoea, deep dyspareunia and dyschezia were assessed primarily by whether there was a decrease in visual analogue score for these types of pain of 50% or more from baseline and additionally whether there was a significantly different change in median visual analogue score. The numbers requiring further surgery or starting a new medical treatment for pelvic pain and complications were also measured. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in dysmenorrhoea at 12 month follow up in women with chronic pelvic pain in the absence of endometriosis who underwent LUNA (median change in visual analogue scale (VAS) from baseline -4.8 versus-0.8 (P= 0.039), 42.1%versus 14.3% experiencing a successful treatment defined as a 50% or greater reduction in visual analogue pain scale for dysmenorrhoea (P= 0.045). There was no significant difference in non-menstrual pelvic pain, deep dyspareunia or dyschezia in women with no endometriosis undergoing LUNA versus no LUNA. The addition of LUNA to laparoscopic surgical treatment of endometriosis was not associated with a significant difference in any pain outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LUNA is effective for dysmenorrhoea in the absence of endometriosis, although there is no evidence of effectiveness of LUNA for non-dysmenorrhoeic chronic pelvic pain or for any type of chronic pelvic pain related to endometriosis.

Johnson NP, Farquhar CM, Hadden WE, Suckling J, Yu Y, Sadler L. · University of Auckland Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National Women's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. · Hum Reprod. · Pubmed #15271870 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: To assess the effectiveness of flushing with the oil-soluble contrast medium lipiodol in women with unexplained infertility. METHODS: An open randomized controlled trial design in a single centre secondary and tertiary level infertility service setting. A total of 158 women with unexplained infertility were stratified into two populations: 96 women without confirmed endometriosis and 62 women with endometriosis who had normal Fallopian tubes and ovaries. Randomization was computer-generated, with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered envelopes. Lipiodol flushing was tested versus no intervention. The main outcome measures were clinical pregnancy (assessed at 6 months following randomization) and live birth. RESULTS: Lipiodol flushing resulted in a significant increase in pregnancy [48.0 versus 10.8%, relative risk (RR) 4.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61-12.21] and live birth (40.0 versus 10.8%, RR 3.70, 95% CI 1.30-10.50) rates versus no intervention for women with endometriosis, although there was no significant difference in pregnancy (33.3 versus 20.8%, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.81-3.16) or live birth (27.1 versus 14.6%, RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.81-4.25) rates for women with unexplained infertility without confirmed endometriosis. CONCLUSIONS: Lipiodol flushing is an effective treatment for couples with unexplained infertility (based on meta-analysis data), but is particularly effective for women with endometriosis who have normal Fallopian tubes and ovaries.