Table 3.
Characteristics of the five studiesincluded in group C
| Author | Country, year | Study design | Main inclusion criteria | Intervention | Control | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mollo et al. (10) | Italy, 2008 | Prospective controlled trial | 176 infertile women | n=44Patients withseptate uterus and underwent hysteroscopic metroplasty | n=132Patients with unexplained infertility, managed expectantly | PR: 38.6% vs. 20.4% LBR: 34.1% vs. 18.9% |
| Tonguc et al. (11) | Turkey, 2010 | Retrospective study | 127 infertile women with uterine septum | n=102Patients underwent hysteroscopic metroplasty | n=25Patients did not undergo metroplasty | PR: 43.1% vs. 20% (P=0.03)MR: 11.4% vs. 60% (P=0.02)LBR: 35.3% vs. 8% (P=0.008) |
| Pacheco et al. (12) | Spain, 2019 | Prospective cohort study | 63 nulliparous infertile womenwith primary T-shaped uterus | All women underwent hysteroscopic metroplasty (Only 60 patients tried to conceive after metroplasty) | No | PR:83.3% LBR:63.3% |
| Ban-Frangež et al. (13) | Slovenia, 2008 | Retrospective matched control study | 380 women conceived following IVF/ICSI | n=106Patients underwent hysteroscopic resection ofa small or large septum | n=274 Patients did not undergo surgery because they did not have any uterine malformation | MR (small septum): 30.6% vs. 20.4%(P: NS)MR (large septum): 28.1% vs. 19.3%(P: NS) |
| Bakas et al. (14) | Greece, 2012 | Prospective observational | 68 infertile women with septate uterus (12 months follow-up) | All patients underwent hysteroscopic metroplasty | No | CPR: 44%LBR: 36.8%MR: 16.6% |
CPR; Clinical pregnancy rate, MR; Miscarriage rate, AR; Abortion rate, LBR; Live birth rate, PR; Pregnancy rate, IVF; In vitro fertilization, ICSI; Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and NS; Not significant.