Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2026 Feb 25:1–35. doi: 10.3310/GJMM1915

Removal of small fibroids and polyps in patients with infertility and recurrent miscarriage: The HELP Fertility? RCT.

Mostafa Metwally, Kirsty McKendrick, Katie Ridsdale, Clare Pye, Stephen Walters, Saad Amer, Amy Barr, Robin Chatters, Ying Cheong, Meenakshi Choudhary, Mary Connor, Lauren Desoysa, Tarek El-Toukhy, Anju Keetharuth, Nick Latimer, Amanda Loban, Lamiya Mohiyiddeen, Mohamed Mostafa, Clair Scaife, Tony Stone, Liz Taylor, Chris Turtle, David White
PMCID: PMC12968972  PMID: 41773973

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Infertility affects one in six of females globally, with uterine submucous fibroids and endometrial polyps being common findings. The effectiveness of surgical removal to improve fertility remains uncertain. The associated surgical risks and costs highlight the need for more robust research in this area. The HELP Fertility? Study aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps and submucosal fibroids, compared to no removal, in improving fertility outcomes for participants with infertility or recurrent miscarriage while also evaluating participant experience and longer-term effects. The trial was designed as a multicentre, pragmatic superiority randomised controlled trial with two concurrent trials; one for endometrial polyps and one for submucosal fibroids, with a 9-month feasibility pilot. Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to either receive hysteroscopic resection or no resection. The primary outcome was live birth rate at 15 months. Secondary outcomes included pregnancy rates, procedure details, patient satisfaction and resource use.

RESULTS

COVID-19 resulted in significant recruitment challenges, with delays in site set-up and participant enrolment due to pandemic-related healthcare disruptions. The trial was closed early by the National Institute for Health and Care Research-Health Technology Assessment programme following recruitment of 35 participants (19 hysteroscopic resection and 16 no resection) out of a target of 1120. The clinical and cost-effectiveness analyses were severely limited by the small sample size. Clinical pregnancy rates within 15 months of randomisation were 26.5% (5/19) in the hysteroscopic resection group and were 37.5% (6/16) in the no resection group. The live birth rate within 15 months of randomisation (the primary outcome) were 15.8% (3/19) in the hysteroscopic resection group and 18.8% (3/16) in the no resection group: a risk difference of -3.0% (95% confidence intervals -31.1% to 24.2%). No serious adverse events were observed in the follow-up. At the mean, hysteroscopic resection resulted in fewer live births, but increased costs, implying that resection is not cost-effective compared to no resection. However, results were highly uncertain and confidence intervals for incremental costs and the incremental live birth rate spanned zero. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per additional live birth, there is a 10% probability that hysteroscopic resection represents a cost-effective intervention and a 90% probability that no resection is cost-effective. There is a 56% probability that resection is more costly and less effective than no resection. Despite implementing remote training, centralised support and opening 16 National Health Service sites by February 2023, insufficient participants were recruited within planned time frames. The study was ultimately closed as part of the NIHR Research Reset Programme in February 2023.

LIMITATIONS

With recruitment of 35 participants against a target of 1120 and the follow-up period limited to 15-24 months, the results of this study are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The HELP Fertility? Trial faced recruitment challenges, enrolling only 35 participants. Due to the small sample size, researchers could not statistically determine any significant difference in live birth rates between surgical intervention and no resection for small fibroids and polyps. Cost-effectiveness results should be interpreted with caution. Researchers were able to provide valuable insights into clinical research complexities, which include clinician and patient equipoise.

FUTURE WORK

The research highlights several critical considerations for future fertility studies.

FUNDING

This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128969.

Plain language summary

Submucosal fibroids and endometrial polyps are common non-cancerous growths in the womb (uterus) and are commonly found in women seeking treatment for fertility and recurrent miscarriage. Despite there being no strong evidence of benefit, these growths are commonly removed by a surgical procedure known as hysteroscopic resection. The Hysteroscopic Excision of Leiomyoma and Polyp Fertility? study investigated whether removing small fibroids and polyps in the womb could help women get pregnant and have a baby. The research team planned to recruit 1120 women but only managed to enrol 35 due to COVID-19 disruptions. Those participants recruited were split randomly into two groups: one receiving surgical removal of small growths and another with no surgery. After tracking pregnancy and live birth outcomes for 15 months, researchers found no clear evidence that surgery helped. However, the small number of participants meant that the results were not statistically reliable enough to draw definitive conclusions. In the surgical group, 26.5% became pregnant compared to 37.5% in the no-surgery group; 15.8% of the surgical group had live births versus 18.8% in the no-surgery group. The researchers acknowledged the study’s limitations, particularly the low recruitment numbers and short follow-up period. Despite not providing clear answers about surgical intervention, the study offered valuable insights into the challenges of conducting medical research, especially during a global pandemic. The team concluded that more comprehensive research is needed to understand how surgical interventions might impact fertility. Their work highlights the complexities of designing and executing clinical studies in challenging circumstances.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Infertility Prevalence Estimates 1990–2021. 2023. URL: www.who.int/publications/i/item/978920068315 (accessed 12 August 2025).
  2. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Fertility Treatment 2022: Preliminary Trends and Figures. 2024. URL: www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publications/research-and-data/fertility-treatment-2022-preliminary-trends-and-figures/ (accessed 12 August 2025).
  3. Regan L, Rai R, Saravelos S, Li TC. Recurrent miscarriage green-top guideline No. 17. BJOG 2023;130:e9–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17515 doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17515. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Huang H, Kuang H, Sun F, Diamond MP, Legro RS, Coutifaris C, et al.; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Reproductive Medicine Network. Lower prevalence of non–cavity-distorting uterine fibroids in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome than in those with unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 2019;111:1011–9.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.020 doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Izhar R, Husain S, Tahir S, Husain S. Incidence of intrauterine abnormalities in Pakistani women with unexplained infertility diagnosed via saline infusion sonography. J Ultrason 2018;18:186–92. https://doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2018.0028 doi: 10.15557/JoU.2018.0028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. Jayakrishnan K, Menon V, Nambiar D. Submucous fibroids and infertility: effect of hysteroscopic myomectomy and factors influencing outcome. J Hum Reprod Sci 2013;6:35. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.112379 doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.112379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. Rackow BW, Jorgensen E, Taylor HS. Endometrial polyps affect uterine receptivity. Fertil Steril 2011;95:2690–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.12.034 doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.12.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. Al Chami A, Saridogan E. Endometrial polyps and subfertility. J Obstet Gynecol India 2017;67:9–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-016-0929-4 doi: 10.1007/s13224-016-0929-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. Pritts EA, Parker WH, Olive DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1215–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.051 doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.051. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Moon JW, Kim CH, Kim JB, Kim SH, Chae HD, Kang BM. Alterations in uterine hemodynamics caused by uterine fibroids and their impact on in vitro fertilization outcomes. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2015;42:163–8. https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2015.42.4.163 doi: 10.5653/cerm.2015.42.4.163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Bosteels J, van Wessel S, Weyers S, Broekmans FJ, D’Hooghe TM, Bongers MY, et al. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;12:CD009461. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Metwally M, Cheong YC, Horne AW. Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11:CD003857. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003857.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003857.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Lőrincz J, Molnár S, Jakab A, Herman T, Jashanjeet S, Török P. The effect of localization and histological verification of endometrial polyps on infertility. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2019;300:217–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05155-3 doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05155-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Kalampokas T, Tzanakaki D, Konidaris S, Iavazzo C, Kalampokas E, Gregoriou O. Endometrial polyps and their relationship in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine insemination. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:299–302. [PubMed]
  15. Karakuş SS, Özdamar O, Karakuş R, Gün I, Sofuoğlu K, Muhcu M, Polat M. Reproductive outcomes following hysteroscopic resection of endometrial polyps of different location, number and size in patients with infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol 2016;36:395–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2015.1085847 doi: 10.3109/01443615.2015.1085847. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Check JH, Bostick-Smith CA, Choe JK, Amui J, Brasile D. Matched controlled study to evaluate the effect of endometrial polyps on pregnancy and implantation rates following in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2011;38:206–8. [PubMed]
  17. Elias RT, Pereira N, Karipcin FS, Rosenwaks Z, Spandorfer SD. Impact of newly diagnosed endometrial polyps during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation on invitro fertilization outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22:590–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.12.170 doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.12.170. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Ghaffari F, Arabipoor A, Bagheri Lankarani N, Hosseini F, Bahmanabadi A. Hysteroscopic polypectomy without cycle cancellation in IVF/ICSI cycles: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;205:37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.08.019 doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.08.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Stamatellos I, Apostolides A, Stamatopoulos P, Bontis J. Pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic polypectomy depending on the size or number of the polyps. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008;277:395–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0460-z doi: 10.1007/s00404-007-0460-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Tiras B, Korucuoglu U, Polat M, Zeyneloglu HB, Saltik A, Yarali H. Management of endometrial polyps diagnosed before or during ICSI cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;24:123–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.09.002 doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Zhu H, Fu J, Lei H, Song Y, Shen L, Huang W. Evaluation of transvaginal sonography in detecting endometrial polyps and the pregnancy outcome following hysteroscopic polypectomy in infertile women. Exp Ther Med 2016;12:1196–200. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2016.3407 doi: 10.3892/etm.2016.3407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Afifi K, Anand S, Nallapeta S, Gelbaya TA. Management of endometrial polyps in subfertile women: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;151:117–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.04.005 doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Zhang H, He X, Tian W, Song X, Zhang H. Hysteroscopic resection of endometrial polyps and assisted reproductive technology pregnancy outcomes compared with no treatment: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019;26:618–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.10.024 doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Fertility Problems: Assessment and Treatment. 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156/resources/fertility-problems-assessment-and-treatment-35109634660549 (accessed 5 August 2025). [PubMed]
  25. Dreisler E, Kjer JJ. Asherman’s syndrome: current perspectives on diagnosis and management. Int J Womens Health 2019;11:191–8. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S165474 doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S165474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Propst AM, Liberman RF, Harlow BL, Ginsburg ES. Complications of hysteroscopic surgery: predicting patients at risk. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:517–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(00)00958-3 doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00958-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Salazar CA, Isaacson K, Morris S. A comprehensive review of Ashermanʼs syndrome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017;29:249–56. https://doi.org/10.1097/gco.0000000000000378 doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000378. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Gambadauro P, Navaratnarajah R, Carli V. Anxiety at outpatient hysteroscopy. Gynecol Surg 2015;12:189–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0895-3 doi: 10.1007/s10397-015-0895-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Woodcock J, LaVange LM. Master protocols to study multiple therapies, multiple diseases, or both. N Engl J Med 2017;377:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1510062 doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1510062. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Avery KNL, Williamson PR, Gamble C, Francischetto EOC, Metcalfe C, Davidson P, et al. Informing efficient randomised controlled trials: exploration of challenges in developing progression criteria for internal pilot studies. BMJ Open 2017;7 e013537. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013537 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. World Health Organization. Safe Surgery: Tool and Resources | WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. 2025. URL: www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/patient-safety/research/safe-surgery/tool-and-resources (accessed 12 August 2025).
  32. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Health Technology Evaluations: The Manual (PMG36). Process Methods. 2022. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/ (accessed 12 August 2025).
  33. NHS England. National Cost Collection for the NHS. 2025. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/costing-in-the-nhs/national-cost-collection/ (accessed 12 August 2025).
  34. Jones KC, Weatherley H, Birch S, Castelli A, Chalkley M, Dargan A, et al. Unit Costs of Health & Social Care 2023 manual. Kent, UK: Personal Social Services Research Unit & Centre for Health Economics; 2024.
  35. Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al.; CHEERS 2022 ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Clin Ther 2022;44:158–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1351 doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2022.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997;6:327–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199707)6:4<327::aid-hec282>3.0.co;2-w doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199707)6:4<327::aid-hec282>3.0.co;2-w. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Econ Eval Clin Trials 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685028.001.0001
  38. UK Clinical Research Delivery Programme (UKCRD). URL: https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/thefutureofukclinicalresearch/home (accessed 9 September 2025).
  39. Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority. Ethnic Diversity in Fertility Treatment 2021. 2021. URL: www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publications/research-and-data/ethnic-diversity-in-fertility-treatment-2021/ (accessed 12 August 2025).
  40. Office for National Statistics. Language, England and Wales: Census 2021. 2024. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/cultural identity/language/bulletins/languageenglandandwales/ census2021 (accessed 12 August 2025).

RESOURCES