Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the current data to understand the impact of intramural leiomyomata on pregnancy outcome in assisted reproduction. Patients and Methods: In this review, articles were found by means of computerized Medline and Cochrane Library search using the key words uterine myomata, leiomyomata, fibroids, implantation, pregnancy, infertility and in vitro fertilization. Limitations were English, human, 1990–2002. Inclusion criteria were pregnancy data on in vitro fertilization, intramural myomata with no cavitary distortion and control groups without myomas for each patient with a myoma. Results: There was a significant negative impact on implantation rate in the intramural myomata groups versus the control groups, 16.4 vs. 27.7% OR 0.62 (0.48–0.8). The delivery rate per transfer cycle was also significantly lower (myomata vs. control), 31.2 vs. 40.9% OR 0.69 (0.50–0.95). Conclusion: Our study supports the notion that patients with intramural fibroids have a lower implantation rate per cycle. The studies did not shed new light on the size of intramural myomata that could affect the outcome. In previous failed in vitro fertilization cycles, microsurgical removal of myomata must be considered.

Background: A recent meta-analysis has proven that metformin (M) is highly effective for ovulation induction in the clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant patient. There is uncertainty whether M should be introduced as a primary ovulation induction agent in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish if M is better when given alone or in combination with CC (CC+M) when compared with CC alone. This systematic review studied live birth delivery rate as the primary outcome. Results: We identified 14 prospective trials. Analysis of these results showed a reduction in the live birth rate in the group of patients treated only with M when compared with CC alone (OR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.31–0.73, p = 0.0006). An increase in ovulation (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.1, p = 0.0009) and pregnancy rate (OR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.6, p = 0.05) with CC+M when compared with CC alone was reported, but no difference was found when live birth rate was analyzed (OR = 1.1, 95% CI 0.8–1.5, p = 0.61). Conclusion: CC alone is superior to M alone regarding live birth rate and ovulation. The combination (CC+M) is superior to CC alone as a primary method for ovulation induction and to achieve pregnancy in PCOS. However, when addressing live birth rate, no statistically significant difference could be demonstrated. Because of the side effects profile and contraindications of M, we believe M should not be indicated as a primary ovulation induction agent in women with PCOS.

No abstract