Search

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the influence of bacterial vaginosis on time to pregnancy in subfertile couples., Methods: Couples attending a teaching hospital in the Netherlands having an initial fertility assessment (IFA) between July 2019 and June 2022 were included in this prospective study, with follow-up of pregnancies until June 2023. Vaginal samples at IFA were analyzed on pH, qPCR BV, and 16S rRNA gene microbiome analysis of V1-V2 region. Main outcome measures were time from initial fertility assessment to ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks and live birth, analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression with adjustment for potential confounders., Results: At IFA, 27% of 163 included participants tested positive for BV. BV status had no influence on time to ongoing pregnancy (HR 0.98, 0.60-1.61, aHR 0.97, 0.58-1.62). In persons with unexplained subfertility, positive BV status had a tendency of longer time to pregnancy. When persons had an indication for fertility treatment, positive BV status (HR 0.21, 0.05-0.88, aHR 0.19, 0.04-0.85) and microbiome community state type III and type IV had significant longer time to pregnancy., Conclusion: This study indicates that BV may have a potential negative impact on time to live birth pregnancy in subfertile persons with an indication for fertility treatment. This study did not find an association between BV and time to live birth pregnancy in a general group of subfertile couples or in unexplained subfertility. More research should be done in persons with unexplained subfertility and if treatment improves time to pregnancy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To assess the safety and effectiveness of LESS compared to conventional hysterectomy., Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the MOOSE guideline, and quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Different databases were searched up to 4th of August 2016. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing LESS to the conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy were considered for inclusion., Results: Of the 668 unique articles, 23 were found relevant. We investigated safety by analyzing the complication rate and found no significant differences between both groups [OR 0.94 (0.61, 1.44), I 2  = 19%]. We assessed effectiveness by analyzing conversion risk, postoperative pain, and patient satisfaction. For conversion rates to laparotomy, no differences were identified [OR 1.60 (0.40, 6.38), I 2  = 45%]. In 3.5% of the cases in the LESS group, an additional port was needed during LESS. For postoperative pain scores and patient satisfaction, some of the included studies reported favorable results for LESS, but the clinical relevance was non-significant. Concerning secondary outcomes, only a difference in operative time was found in favor of the conventional group [MD 11.3 min (5.45-17.17), I 2  = 89%]. The quality of evidence for our primary outcomes was low or very low due to the study designs and lack of power for the specified outcomes. Therefore, caution is urged when interpreting the results., Conclusion: The single-port technique for benign hysterectomy is feasible, safe, and equally effective compared to the conventional technique. No clinically relevant advantages were identified, and as no data on cost effectiveness are available, there are currently not enough valid arguments to broadly implement LESS for hysterectomy.