Table 1.
Author (Years) [Ref] | Article | Comparison | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Bordewijk (2020) [39] | Review | LOD with or without medical ovulation induction vs. medical ovulation induction alone | Live birth: Slightly ameliorated by LOD (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54–0.92) |
Yu (2019) [116] | Review | Letrozole vs. LOD | No difference in ovulation rate (RR1.12; 95% CI 0.93–1.34), and live birth rate (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96–1.68) |
Debras (2019) [66] | Multicenter study | LOD alone, long term effect | Mean follow-up period was 28.4 months (25.3–31.5). At least 47.4% women got pregnancy after a drilling. |
Abu Hashim (2018) [38] | Review | BLOD vs. ULOD | No significant differences in ovulation (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47–1.11) and live birth (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.28–2.10). |
Franik (2018) [42] | Review | AI+/− adjuvants vs. LOD | Live birth: OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.95–2.02 |
Abu Hashim (2015) [31] | Review | CC+M vs. LOD | Live birth: OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.22–4.17 |
Kaur (2013) [117] | Observational study | LOD alone | Clinical pregnancy rate: 47.3%; live birth rate: 40.5% |
Nasr (2012) [118] | RCT | Electrocautery vs. harmonic scalpel | Similar ovulation rate (89% vs. 92.9%) and pregnancy rate (50% vs. 57%). |
Farquhar (2012) [119] | Review | LOD vs. medical treatments | Live birth: 34% vs. 38%. No significant difference. |
Abu Hashim (2011) [120] | RCT | CC+M vs. LOD | Similar ovulation rate (67% vs. 68.4%) and pregnancy rate (15.4% vs. 17%). |
Abdullah (2011) [121] | RCT | Letrozole vs. LOD | Ovulation rate: Significantly higher in the letrozole than LOD (59.0% vs. 47.5%). Similar live birth rate. |
Roy (2010) [122] | RCT | Rosiglitazone + CC vs. LOD + CC | Similar ovulation (80.8 vs. 81.5%) and pregnancy rate (50 vs. 42.8%). |
Ref: reference; CC: clomiphene citrate; M: metformin; LOD: laparoscopic ovarian drilling; ULOD: unilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling; BLOD: bilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling; AI: aromatase inhibitor; RCT: randomized controlled trial; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; NS: no significance.