Search

The Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB) Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) watershed is hydrologically complex, with a notable temperature and precipitation gradient across four locations: Ames, IA; Platteville, WI; Morris, MN; and St. Paul, MN. Each location established LTAR Croplands Common Experiment (CCE) scenarios to fit local climatic and cultural practices. This paper describes the UMRB-Morris location, which was established in 2016 and is the most northern of the sites and contributes to the major watersheds of the UMRB and the Red River of the North. Both on-farm and plot-scale studies are included. The prevailing system is a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.) rotation with annual deep ripping tillage. The signature alternative system is alternative 1, which is a shallow strip-till in a corn-soybean rotation. A second alternative system includes shallow tillage/rotational no-tillage in a corn-soybean-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) with winter oilseed and cover crops, and it is considered a test ground for future alternative systems. On-farm fields are equipped with eddy covariance towers and include 16 geo-referenced soil core sampling sites for incremental samplings. Each field is sampled annually for crop yield and management data are recorded. Plot-scale versions of the treatments are managed at the Swan Lake Research Farm. On-farm and plot-scale fields are instrumented with Phenocams to capture continuous photographic records. The CCE at UMRB-Morris aims to integrate soil, crop, weather data, and image classification to assess benefits and challenges across different management strategies., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Environmental Quality © 2024 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Introduction: Meta-analyses comparing hysteroscopic electromechanical morcellation with electrosurgical resection showed a shorter operating time for electromechanical morcellation, mainly for polypectomy. The Resectr™ 9Fr is a new hysteroscopic manual morcellator, designed to simplify this procedure. We aimed to compare manual with electromechanical morcellation for hysteroscopic polypectomy., Material and Methods: This two-center randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was performed from 2018 to 2021 in the Catharina Hospital and the Ghent University Hospital. The study was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (NL6922; ICTRP ID: NTR7118). One hundred and forty women with polyps (between 8 and 20 mm) scheduled for hysteroscopic removal were randomized between manual (Resectr™ 9Fr) or electromechanical (TruClear™) morcellation. The primary outcome was time (instrumentation set-up, resection, and total procedure time)., Results: The non-inferiority margin for the primary outcome time was 1.3. Mean instrumentation set-up time was 10% shorter with the manual compared with the electromechanical morcellator (estimated mean ratio manual/electromechanical = 0.9; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-1.1). Mean resection time was 30% longer with the manual compared with the motor-driven system (estimated mean ratio manual/electromechanical = 1.3; 97.5% CI 0.9-1.9). Mean total procedure time was 10% longer with the manual compared with the electromechanical morcellator (estimated mean ratio manual/electromechanical = 1.1; 95% CI 0.91-1.298). The estimated odds (electromechanical/manual) of better surgeon's safety, effective and comfort scores were, respectively, 4.5 (95% CI 0.9-22.1), 7.0 (95% CI 1.5-31.9), and 5.9 (95% CI 1.1-30.3) times higher with the motor-driven compared with the manual morcellator. Conversion rates and incomplete resection rates were comparable in both groups (manual vs electromechanical) (7.6% [4/66] vs 2.9% [2/68] and 6.1% [4/66] vs 3.0% [2/66], respectively). No intraoperative and postoperative complications were registered., Conclusions: The manual morcellator was non-inferior to the electromechanical morcellator for hysteroscopic polypectomy in terms of mean instrumentation set-up time and total procedure time. Results on resection time were inconclusive. Conversion and incomplete resection rates were within the range reported in the literature. Surgeon's reported rating for both devices was high, however, in favor of the motor-driven tissue removal system., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)

Winter cover crops might reduce nutrient loss to leaching in the Upper Midwest. New oilseed-bearing cash cover crops, such as winter camelina ( L.) and pennycress ( L.), may provide needed incentives. However, the abilities of these crops to sequester labile soil nutrients are unknown. To address this unknown, N in shoot biomass, plant-available N and P in soil, and NO-N and soluble reactive P in soil water collected from lysimeters placed at 30, 60, and 100 cm were measured in cover crop and fallow treatments established in spring wheat ( L.) stubble and followed through a cover crop-soybean [ (L.) Merr.] rotation. Five no-till cover treatments (forage radish [ L.], winter rye [ L.], field pennycress, and winter camelina) were compared with two fallow treatments (chisel till and no-till). Pennycress and winter camelina were harvested at maturity after relay sowing of soybean. Winter rye and radish sequestered more N in autumn shoot biomass, ranging from 26 to 38 kg N ha, but overwintering oilseeds matched or exceeded N uptake in spring, ranging 28 to 49 kg N ha before soybean planting. Nitrogen uptake was reflected by reductions in soil water NO-N during cover crop and intercropping phases for all cover treatments (mean = 4 mg L), compared with fallow treatments (mean = 31 mg L). Cash cover crops like pennycress and winter camelina provide both environmental and potential economic resources to growers. They are cash-generating crops able to sequester labile soil nutrients, which protects and promotes soil health from autumn through early summer., (© 2019 The Authors. Re-use requires permission from the publisher.)

Background: Screening hysteroscopy in infertile women with unexplained infertility, or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) may reveal intrauterine pathology that may not be detected by routine transvaginal ultrasound. Hysteroscopy, whether purely diagnostic or operative may improve reproductive outcomes., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women undergoing evaluation for infertility, and subfertile women undergoing IUI or IVF., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL CRSO, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (September 2018). We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing screening hysteroscopy versus no intervention in subfertile women wishing to conceive spontaneously, or before undergoing IUI or IVF., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and complications following hysteroscopy. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR) and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE criteria., Main Results: We retrieved 11 studies. We included one trial that evaluated screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy, in women with unexplained subfertility, who were trying to conceive spontaneously. We are uncertain whether ongoing pregnancy rate improves following a screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility (RR 4.30, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.07; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 10% ongoing pregnancy rate without hysteroscopy, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 23% and 81%. The included study reported no adverse events in either treatment arm. We are uncertain whether clinical pregnancy rate is improved (RR 3.80, 95% CI 2.31 to 6.24; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate increases (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.48; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), following screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility.We included ten trials that included 1836 women who had a screening hysteroscopy and 1914 women who had no hysteroscopy prior to IVF. Main limitations in the quality of evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and higher statistical heterogeneity. Eight of the ten trials had unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment.Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth rate (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.43; 6 RCTs; participants = 2745; I² = 69 %; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 22% live birth rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in live birth rates between 25% and 32%. However, sensitivity analysis done by pooling results from trials at low risk of bias showed no increase in live birth rate following a screening hysteroscopy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; 2 RCTs; participants = 1452; I² = 0%).Only four trials reported complications following hysteroscopy; of these, three trials recorded no events in either group. We are uncertain whether a screening hysteroscopy is associated with higher adverse events (Peto odds ratio 7.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 376.42; 4 RCTs; participants = 1872; I² = not applicable; very low-quality evidence).Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.45; 10 RCTs; participants = 3750; I² = 49%; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 28% clinical pregnancy rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 33% and 40%.There may be little or no difference in miscarriage rate following screening hysteroscopy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50; 3 RCTs; participants = 1669; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We found no trials that compared a screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy before IUI., Authors' Conclusions: At present, there is no high-quality evidence to support the routine use of hysteroscopy as a screening tool in the general population of subfertile women with a normal ultrasound or hysterosalpingogram in the basic fertility work-up for improving reproductive success rates.In women undergoing IVF, low-quality evidence, including all of the studies reporting these outcomes, suggests that performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth and clinical pregnancy rates. However, pooled results from the only two trials with a low risk of bias did not show a benefit of screening hysteroscopy before IVF.Since the studies showing an effect are those with unclear allocation concealment, we are uncertain whether a routine screening hysteroscopy increases live birth and clinical pregnancy, be it for all women, or those with two or more failed IVF attempts. There is insufficient data to draw conclusions about the safety of screening hysteroscopy.

Background: Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility., Objectives: To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)., Search Methods: We searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information., Main Results: Two studies met the inclusion criteria.1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison.2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI., Authors' Conclusions: Uncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low-quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Background: Observational evidence suggests a potential benefit with several anti-adhesion therapies in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy (e.g. insertion of an intrauterine device or balloon, hormonal treatment, barrier gels or human amniotic membrane grafting) for decreasing intrauterine adhesions (IUAs)., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy, following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility., Search Methods: We searched the following databases from inception to June 2017: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO); MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL and other electronic sources of trials, including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, and we contacted experts in the field. We also searched reference lists of appropriate papers., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and IUAs present at second-look hysteroscopy, along with mean adhesion scores and severity of IUAs., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated quality of evidence using the GRADE method., Main Results: The overall quality of the evidence was low to very low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias related to blinding of participants and personnel, indirectness and imprecision. We identified 16 RCTs comparing a device versus no treatment (two studies; 90 women), hormonal treatment versus no treatment or placebo (two studies; 136 women), device combined with hormonal treatment versus no treatment (one study; 20 women), barrier gel versus no treatment (five studies; 464 women), device with graft versus device without graft (three studies; 190 women), one type of device versus another device (one study; 201 women), gel combined with hormonal treatment and antibiotics versus hormonal treatment with antibiotics (one study; 52 women) and device combined with gel versus device (one study; 120 women). The total number of participants was 1273, but data on 1133 women were available for analysis. Only two of 16 studies included 100% infertile women; in all other studies, the proportion was variable or unknown.No study reported live birth, but some (five studies) reported outcomes that were used as surrogate outcomes for live birth (term delivery or ongoing pregnancy). Anti-adhesion therapy versus placebo or no treatment following operative hysteroscopy.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the use of a device or hormonal treatment compared to no treatment or placebo with respect to term delivery or ongoing pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 2.12; 107 women; 2 studies; I² = 0%; very-low-quality evidence).There were fewer IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy using a device with or without hormonal treatment or hormonal treatment or barrier gels compared with no treatment or placebo (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60; 560 women; 8 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 9 (95% CI 5 to 17). Comparisons of different anti-adhesion therapies following operative hysteroscopyIt was unclear whether there was a difference between the use of a device combined with graft versus device only for the outcome of ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.83; 180 women; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). There were fewer IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy using a device with or without graft/gel or gel combined with hormonal treatment and antibiotics compared with using a device only or hormonal treatment combined with antibiotics, but the findings of this meta-analysis were affected by evidence quality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83; 451 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Implications for clinical practiceThe quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The effectiveness of anti-adhesion treatment for improving key reproductive outcomes or for decreasing IUAs following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women remains uncertain. Implications for researchMore research is needed to assess the comparative safety and (cost-)effectiveness of different anti-adhesion treatments compared to no treatment or other interventions for improving key reproductive outcomes in subfertile women.

Background: Limited observational evidence suggests potential benefit for subfertile women undergoing operative hysteroscopy with several anti-adhesion therapies (e.g. insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) or balloon, hormonal treatment, barrier gels or human amniotic membrane grafting) to decrease intrauterine adhesions (IUAs)., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility., Search Methods: We searched the following databases from inception to March 2015: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and other electronic sources of trials, including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, and we contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised comparisons of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women. The primary outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and IUAs present at second look, along with their mean adhesion scores or severity., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method., Main Results: We included 11 randomised studies on use of an inserted device versus no treatment (two studies; 84 women) or another inserted device (one study; 162 women), hormonal treatment versus no treatment or placebo (two studies; 131 women), gel versus no treatment (five studies; 383 women) and graft versus no graft (one study; 43 women). The total number of women randomly assigned was 924, but data on only 803 participants were available for analysis. The proportion of subfertile women varied from 0% (one study; 41 women), to less than 50% (six studies; 487 women), to 100% (one study; 43 women); the proportion was unknown in three studies (232 women). Most studies (9/11) were at high risk of bias with respect to one or more methodological criteria.We found no evidence of differences between anti-adhesion therapy and no treatment or placebo with respect to live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 2.13, P value = 0.98, three studies, 150 women; low-quality evidence) and no statistical heterogeneity (Chi(2) = 0.14, df = 2 (P value = 0.93), I(2) = 0%).Anti-adhesion therapy was associated with fewer IUAs at any second-look hysteroscopy when compared with no treatment or placebo (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.64, P value = 0.0005, seven studies, 528 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no statistical heterogeneity (Chi(2) = 2.65, df = 5 (P value = 0.75), I(2) = 0%). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 9 (95% CI 6 to 20).No evidence suggested differences between an IUD and an intrauterine balloon with respect to IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.37, P value = 0.54, one study, 162 women; very low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Implications for clinical practiceThe quality of the evidence retrieved was low or very low for all outcomes. Clinical effectiveness of anti-adhesion treatment for improving key reproductive outcomes or for decreasing IUAs following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women remains uncertain. Implications for researchAdditional studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of different anti-adhesion therapies for improving reproductive outcomes in subfertile women treated by operative hysteroscopy.

Background: Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are detectable in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility., Objectives: To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register (8 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 12 October 2014), EMBASE (inception to 12 October 2014), CINAHL (inception to 11 October 2014) and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from January 2013 to October 2014) and we contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised comparisons between operative hysteroscopy versus control in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or undergoing IUI, IVF or ICSI and suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasonography, saline infusion/gel instillation sonography, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information., Main Results: We retrieved 12 randomised trials possibly addressing the research questions. Only two studies (309 women) met the inclusion criteria. Neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth or procedure related complications. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the intervention group treated with hysteroscopic myomectomy and the control group having regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for the outcome of clinical pregnancy. A large clinical benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy cannot be excluded: if 21% of women with fibroids achieve a clinical pregnancy having timed intercourse only, the evidence suggests that 39% of women (95% CI 21% to 58%) will achieve a successful outcome following the hysteroscopic removal of the fibroids (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17, P = 0.06, 94 women, very low quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the comparison groups for the outcome of miscarriage (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.85, P = 0.50, 30 clinical pregnancies in 94 women, very low quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI can increase the chance of a clinical pregnancy compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy: if 28% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy with a simple diagnostic hysteroscopy, the evidence suggests that 63% of women (95% CI 50% to 76%) will achieve a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96, P < 0.00001, 204 women, moderate quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: A large benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the chance of clinical pregnancy in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility cannot be excluded. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. More randomised studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic removal of suspected endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Background: Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are detectable in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility., Objectives: To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register (6 August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (T he Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1950 to October 2012), EMBASE (1974 to October 2012), CINAHL (from inception to October 2012) and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from January 2008 to October 2012) and we contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised comparisons between operative hysteroscopy versus control in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or undergoing IUI, IVF or ICSI and suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasonography, saline infusion/gel instillation sonography, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information., Main Results: Two studies met the inclusion criteria and neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth and complications from the procedure. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, there is no evidence of benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy compared to regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for clinical pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.2, P = 0.06, 94 women) and miscarriage (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.0, P = 0.47, 94 women) (very low-quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI increases the odds of clinical pregnancy (experimental event rate (EER) 63%) compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy only (control event rate (CER) 28%) (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.5 to 8.0, P < 0.00001, 204 women, high-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Hysteroscopic myomectomy might increase the odds of clinical pregnancy in women with unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, but the evidence is at present not conclusive. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI might increase the clinical pregnancy rate. More randomised studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic removal of suspected endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.