Further publications on Asherman's syndrome have been added to the site. These include those on the Diagnosis, Classification and Treatment of Asherman's syndrome. Please click here or on the relevant tab in the menu above to view these references.
Previously a page with references to studies on the Etiology, Incidence and Prevention of Asherman's syndrome was added. Click here or on the relevant tab in the menu above for more.
Further references to publications on Asherman's syndrome by topic will be added to the site in the near future.
Showing posts with label hysteroscopy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hysteroscopy. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Articles on Asherman's syndrome Etiology, Incidence, Prevention
A selection of publications about Asherman's syndrome including reviews and journal articles on its etiology, incidence and prevention is being added to the site. It can be found here or alternatively, click on the relevant tab in tab menu at the top of the page. There will be another page with articles on Diagnosis, Classification, Treatment, Reproductive Outcomes and Obstetric Complications soon.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The DO’s and DON’T's (and maybe’s) of Managing Intrauterine Adhesions.
Based on: AAGL: Practice Report: Practice Guidelines for Management of Intrauterine Synechiae, The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Vol. 17, No.1 2010.
Practice committee members:
Malcolm Munro MD, FRCS(C), FACOG
Rafaele F.Valle,MD
Jason A. Abbott, PhD,FRANZCOG,MRCOG
Angus J.M. Thompson, MRCOG
Keith B. Isaacson, MD
Adolf Gallinat, MD
Volker R. Jacobs, MD, PhD, MBA
Fred M. Howard MD
Andrew I. Sokol, MD
Linda D. Bradley, MD
Recently, the Practice Committee of the AAGL developed guidelines for the management of intrauterine adhesions (IUA), published in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (2010). This is a welcome initiative, and long-awaited, with over one century passing since the first description of Asherman’s syndrome in the literature (1). Although these guidelines were based on studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals, there are limitations and room for more specific guidelines, as the authors themselves acknowledge, due to a lack of comparative studies and rigorous medical evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For example, studies were conducted using different surgical modalities, surgical tools, adjunctive therapies, and hormone therapy protocols. Many studies are also old and/or conducted retrospectively. One of the difficulties of studying IUA is that it is under diagnosed so that many women may not realize they have it. This results in a small sample size for studies, especially when patient treatment is spread between different centers. Additionally, the skills of the surgeon are important in influencing outcome which makes comparisons between different studies difficult. Consequently, drawing meaningful conclusions on treatment is problematic. To circumvent these shortcomings, the authors classified data based on the highest level of evidence found in the data and graded them according to a system outlined by the US Preventive Services Task Force. In most cases the evidence is based primarily on consensus and expert opinion (Level C). Hopefully trials will be forthcoming which meet today’s strict standards of clinical research, and recommendations which are stronger and more specific will result from them.
The goal of IUA management is to restore the volume and architecture of the uterine cavity and its communication with the fallopian tubes and cervical canal by removing IUA, preventing their recurrence and regenerating deficient endometrial growth.
Below is a summary of the recommendations of the article. My additional comments are in blue font.DIAGNOSISHysteroscopy is the most accurate method for diagnosis of IUA and should be chosen over HSG and SHG (although the latter are reasonable alternatives if hysteroscopy is not available).
(Grade B)
CLASSIFICATION
Although there are several classification systems, none is considered superior over the other, probably reflecting inadequacies in all current systems. (Grade C)
An accurate and universal classification system for IUA is important for enabling the comparison of studies and providing prognostic indicators of fertility outcome. (Grade B)
TREATMENT
DO's:
Only expert hysteroscopists familiar with IUA treatment should attempt to treat extensive or dense adhesions. (Level C)(Surgeons who are inexperienced may inadvertantly cause further irreparable damage).
Direct visualization of the uterus during hysteroscopic lysis of adhesions using a tool for dissection is the treatment of choice for IUA which underlies infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, pain or other related symptoms. (Level C).
In some women expectant management may be acceptable. (Level C)
(ie. if adhesions are thin and filmy and/or cover a small surface area treatment benefits may not outweigh treatment risks).
Estrogen therapy with or without progestin may reduce reformation of IUAs. (Level B)(Estrogen therapy dose and length will depend on severity. See also Recommendations for Future Research).
MAYBE's:
Gel barriers such as hyaluronic acid and auto-cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel may reduce IUA recurrence follow surgical correction, however there is not enough data on pregnancy outcomes following their use, so should not be used without more rigorous trials. (Level A)
(Potential problems with gel barriers are that they are difficult to keep in place, become less viscous at body temperature, draining out of the uterus. See also Recommendations for Future Research).
Foley catheter or IUD should not be used routinely after corrective surgery without further data from trials supporting their benefit. This is because they may increase the risk for infection. (Level C)
(There have been reports of IUDs puncturing the uterus. Also, some doctors also believe that intrauterine pressure from balloons can hinder endometrial regeneration. However, both the Foley catheter and the Cook stent-which curiously was not mentioned in the article-have been used successfully (2)).
Supporting or refuting the use of prophylactic antibiotics before, during or after surgical adhesiolysis. (Level C)
(However, antibiotic prophylaxis should be used in the case of barriers, as a foreign object inside the uterus increases the risk of infection. See also Recommendations for Future Research).
Medications to improve blood flow to the endometrium should be used only after being supported by rigorous research. (Level C)(These include low-dose aspirin, Coenzyme Q-10, vitamin E, and Sildenafil citrate.ie. Viagra, and even herbal remedies such as raspberry leaf tea).
Prevention of complications (eg. perforation) or improved outcomes with the use of external imaging techniques or laparoscopy, however these techniques may have advantages in case perforation does occur. (Level B)(Another advantage is that laparoscopy allows the surgeon to view the pelvic cavity where there may be endometriosis (3), especially in the more severe cases where laparoscopy is often used).
DON’T's:
There is no evidence to support blind D&C or blind cervical probing in the treatment of IUA (Level C)(The authors state that D&C should not be used because it does not permit accurate diagnosis and classification. The bigger concern should be that blind curettage may cause further and irreversible damage and is the underlying cause of most IUA (4)).
Copper (inflammatory), progestin-releasing (suppress endometrium) and T-shaped IUDs (small surface area) should not be used after adhesiolysis. (Level C)
Laparotomy should be considered as a last resort (eg. when hysteroscopic surgery fails) (Level C)
Electrosurgery/laser: There is some disagreement over which tools are best suited for adhesiolysis. Some surgeons prefer to use microscissors and stress that thermal energy tools offer no advantage over scissor dissection with regards to either speed or hemostasis (2). Furthermore, these modalities (including resectoscope, Nd:YAG laser, monopolar/bipolar electrode) deliver energy that can cause injury to surrounding tissues and therefore some believe it is prudent to avoid them for the treatment of IUA (2). Indeed, electrosurgical tools are normally used for endometrial ablation which burns away endometrium and intentionally induces Asherman’s syndrome in women with excessive bleeding. However, other doctors claim that in experienced hands these tools are safe. Which ever the case, this is an issue which probably needs to be further examined to refute any safety concerns.POSTOPERATIVE ASSESSMENT:Follow-up evaluation of the uterine cavity is recommended after treatment of IUA. (Level B).(This is an important factor in determining outcome as adhesions may reform and further surgery may be needed. If a pregnancy occurs in a uterus with IUA, there is a higher likelihood of infertility, miscarriage and pregnancy complications (5). Patients should undergo either HSG, SHG, or in-office hysteroscopy (with as narrow cervical dilation as possible) in order to verify the uterine cavity is free of adhesions. A mid-cycle scan should also be used to measure the endometrial thickness at ovulation. Ideally this should measure 7-8 mm for implantation to be successful. Some women with corrected IUA have thin endometrium which may require hormone treatment to thicken. If adhesions blocking the ostium are present, natural conception is not possible and IVF will be recommended).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:
1. Prospective trials on the effect of intraoperative and postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical and fertility outcome.(I don’t know of doctors who do not use antibiotics during or after operative hysteroscopy. Also, the article states: “…it has been proposed that infection may be a primary cause of IUAs…” Antibiotic prophylaxis is wise for preventing infections whether or not they lead to IUA. However, at this stage, there is actually no evidence to support that most IUAs result from infection, whether frank or subclinical. In fact, there is limited evidence to the contrary (6,7). Also see The subclinical infection myth).2. Prospective trials of adjunctive hormone therapy efficacy with respect to surgical and fertility outcome.(The optimum dosage of estrogen (E2 with or without progestin, P4) and length of treatment have not been studied. Progynova (Estradiol valerate) a synthetic version of a naturally occurring estrogen or Premarin, a combination of around 11 conjugated equine estrogens extracted from pregnant mare urine, are usually used. These compounds have not been compared to each other in trials).
3. Prospective trials of barrier method (IUD, Foley catheter and gel adhesion barriers) efficacy with respect to surgical and fertility outcome.
(Presumably the Cook stent, which is used by some doctors (2), should also be included in trials. Regarding the use of gel adhesion barriers which are potentially the least invasive and risky type of barrier, one questions why there is not more research on their use to prevent IUA from occurring in the first place. If gel barriers are therapeutic for reducing IUA reformation after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis perhaps their use after D&C and other primary intrauterine surgery would reduce the incidence of IUA. There is so far only one study and results show only 10% of women who received Seprafilm after curettage for miscarriage developed IUA vs 50% amongst controls (8)).
4. Stem cells for future treatment: As discussed in a previous blog, some cases are currently not treatable because the extent of damage to the basal endometrium (sometimes curettage even removes part of the underlying myometrium) from which the functional layer regenerates. This leads to persistently thin endometrium or reformation of IUA after corrective surgery and excludes the possibility of carrying a pregnancy. Surrogacy is the only option in such cases. However Dr Chaitanya Nagori and Dr Sonal Panchal of Nagori Institute of Infertility in India claim to have used stem cell technology to thicken the endometrium in women who underwent excessive ‘cleaning’ up of the uterus (ie. a euphemism for D&C), although they do not mention the presence of IUA. The process involved isolating adult stem cells from the bone marrow of the patient, transplanting the purified stem cells into the patient’s uterine cavity under transvaginal sonographic guidance, and stimulating the production of endometrial angiogenic stem cells by administering estrogen before IVF treatment. Using this technique they reportedly were able to increase ‘negligible’ endometrial growth to 6mm three months after the transfer and estrogen therapy. Although they assert that IVF drugs alone did not increase the patient’s endometrial measurement, it remains to be proven whether this effect is due to the post-transplant estrogen treatment or from the stem cell therapy. Nonetheless, the concept of using stem cells for tissue repair in the uterus is intriguing, and possibly the best hope in future for very severe cases of IUA (uterine transplant is another future possibility). This could be more convincing if recurrent IUA was prevented with stem cells following hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. Definitive proof would be obtained if the stem cells and their progeny were biochemically labeled so as to be identifiable from the original tissue. This could be done in animal studies, for example. The great advantage of stem cells is that they have the capacity to differentiate into a range of cells that are necessary to rebuild a normal uterus, from myometrium and endometrium to the blood vessels which supply them with blood and hormones. Furthermore, as the stem cells are derived from the patient’s own bone marrow ie. autologous adult stem cells, there is no risk of either rejection or ethical controversy (as with embryonic stem cells). Unfortunately at this stage there are no published studies on this treatment.
REFERENCES
1. Fritsch H, Ein Fall von volligem Schwaund der Gebormutterhohle nach Auskratzung. Zentralbl Gynaekol 1894; 18:1337-1342.
2. March, CM; Miller, CE. Hysteroscopic lysis of intrauterine adhesions. Ob.Gyn. News 2006; 41(23):36-37. Abstract
3. Palter. SF, High Rates of Endometriosis in Patients With Intrauterine Synechiae (Asherman's Syndrome). Fertility and Sterility 2005; 86 (null):S471-S471. Link
4. Palter S, Spyrou P. Asherman’s syndrome: Etiologic factors, patterns of pregnancy loss, and treatment results. Results from an international registry. Fertility and Sterility 2003; 80(3):36-7. Link
5. March CM. Intrauterine adhesions. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 1995;22(3):491-505. Abstract
6. Jensen, P.A. and Stromme, W.B. Amenorrhea secondary to puerperal curettage (Asherman's syndrome). Am J Obstet Gynecol 1972; 113: 150–4.
7. Polishuk, SO Anteby and D Weinstein, Puerperal endometritis and intrauterine adhesions, Int Surg 1975;60:418–420. Abstract
8. Tsapanos VS, Stathopoulou LP, Papathanassopoulou VS, Tzingounis VA. The role of Seprafilm bioresorbable membrane in the prevention and therapy of endometrial synechiae. Biomed Material Res. 2002;63:10-14. Abstract
Related Links:Good news: Grow endometrium by stem cells. (Times of India)
Recommendation Grading:
Level A: Recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence.
Level B: Recommendations are based on limited or incomsistent scientific evidence.
Level C: Recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.
Practice committee members:
Malcolm Munro MD, FRCS(C), FACOG
Rafaele F.Valle,MD
Jason A. Abbott, PhD,FRANZCOG,MRCOG
Angus J.M. Thompson, MRCOG
Keith B. Isaacson, MD
Adolf Gallinat, MD
Volker R. Jacobs, MD, PhD, MBA
Fred M. Howard MD
Andrew I. Sokol, MD
Linda D. Bradley, MD
Recently, the Practice Committee of the AAGL developed guidelines for the management of intrauterine adhesions (IUA), published in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (2010). This is a welcome initiative, and long-awaited, with over one century passing since the first description of Asherman’s syndrome in the literature (1). Although these guidelines were based on studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals, there are limitations and room for more specific guidelines, as the authors themselves acknowledge, due to a lack of comparative studies and rigorous medical evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For example, studies were conducted using different surgical modalities, surgical tools, adjunctive therapies, and hormone therapy protocols. Many studies are also old and/or conducted retrospectively. One of the difficulties of studying IUA is that it is under diagnosed so that many women may not realize they have it. This results in a small sample size for studies, especially when patient treatment is spread between different centers. Additionally, the skills of the surgeon are important in influencing outcome which makes comparisons between different studies difficult. Consequently, drawing meaningful conclusions on treatment is problematic. To circumvent these shortcomings, the authors classified data based on the highest level of evidence found in the data and graded them according to a system outlined by the US Preventive Services Task Force. In most cases the evidence is based primarily on consensus and expert opinion (Level C). Hopefully trials will be forthcoming which meet today’s strict standards of clinical research, and recommendations which are stronger and more specific will result from them.
The goal of IUA management is to restore the volume and architecture of the uterine cavity and its communication with the fallopian tubes and cervical canal by removing IUA, preventing their recurrence and regenerating deficient endometrial growth.
Below is a summary of the recommendations of the article. My additional comments are in blue font.DIAGNOSISHysteroscopy is the most accurate method for diagnosis of IUA and should be chosen over HSG and SHG (although the latter are reasonable alternatives if hysteroscopy is not available).
(Grade B)
CLASSIFICATION
Although there are several classification systems, none is considered superior over the other, probably reflecting inadequacies in all current systems. (Grade C)
An accurate and universal classification system for IUA is important for enabling the comparison of studies and providing prognostic indicators of fertility outcome. (Grade B)
TREATMENT
DO's:
Only expert hysteroscopists familiar with IUA treatment should attempt to treat extensive or dense adhesions. (Level C)(Surgeons who are inexperienced may inadvertantly cause further irreparable damage).
Direct visualization of the uterus during hysteroscopic lysis of adhesions using a tool for dissection is the treatment of choice for IUA which underlies infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, pain or other related symptoms. (Level C).
In some women expectant management may be acceptable. (Level C)
(ie. if adhesions are thin and filmy and/or cover a small surface area treatment benefits may not outweigh treatment risks).
Estrogen therapy with or without progestin may reduce reformation of IUAs. (Level B)(Estrogen therapy dose and length will depend on severity. See also Recommendations for Future Research).
MAYBE's:
Gel barriers such as hyaluronic acid and auto-cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel may reduce IUA recurrence follow surgical correction, however there is not enough data on pregnancy outcomes following their use, so should not be used without more rigorous trials. (Level A)
(Potential problems with gel barriers are that they are difficult to keep in place, become less viscous at body temperature, draining out of the uterus. See also Recommendations for Future Research).
Foley catheter or IUD should not be used routinely after corrective surgery without further data from trials supporting their benefit. This is because they may increase the risk for infection. (Level C)
(There have been reports of IUDs puncturing the uterus. Also, some doctors also believe that intrauterine pressure from balloons can hinder endometrial regeneration. However, both the Foley catheter and the Cook stent-which curiously was not mentioned in the article-have been used successfully (2)).
Supporting or refuting the use of prophylactic antibiotics before, during or after surgical adhesiolysis. (Level C)
(However, antibiotic prophylaxis should be used in the case of barriers, as a foreign object inside the uterus increases the risk of infection. See also Recommendations for Future Research).
Medications to improve blood flow to the endometrium should be used only after being supported by rigorous research. (Level C)(These include low-dose aspirin, Coenzyme Q-10, vitamin E, and Sildenafil citrate.ie. Viagra, and even herbal remedies such as raspberry leaf tea).
Prevention of complications (eg. perforation) or improved outcomes with the use of external imaging techniques or laparoscopy, however these techniques may have advantages in case perforation does occur. (Level B)(Another advantage is that laparoscopy allows the surgeon to view the pelvic cavity where there may be endometriosis (3), especially in the more severe cases where laparoscopy is often used).
DON’T's:
There is no evidence to support blind D&C or blind cervical probing in the treatment of IUA (Level C)(The authors state that D&C should not be used because it does not permit accurate diagnosis and classification. The bigger concern should be that blind curettage may cause further and irreversible damage and is the underlying cause of most IUA (4)).
Copper (inflammatory), progestin-releasing (suppress endometrium) and T-shaped IUDs (small surface area) should not be used after adhesiolysis. (Level C)
Laparotomy should be considered as a last resort (eg. when hysteroscopic surgery fails) (Level C)
Electrosurgery/laser: There is some disagreement over which tools are best suited for adhesiolysis. Some surgeons prefer to use microscissors and stress that thermal energy tools offer no advantage over scissor dissection with regards to either speed or hemostasis (2). Furthermore, these modalities (including resectoscope, Nd:YAG laser, monopolar/bipolar electrode) deliver energy that can cause injury to surrounding tissues and therefore some believe it is prudent to avoid them for the treatment of IUA (2). Indeed, electrosurgical tools are normally used for endometrial ablation which burns away endometrium and intentionally induces Asherman’s syndrome in women with excessive bleeding. However, other doctors claim that in experienced hands these tools are safe. Which ever the case, this is an issue which probably needs to be further examined to refute any safety concerns.POSTOPERATIVE ASSESSMENT:Follow-up evaluation of the uterine cavity is recommended after treatment of IUA. (Level B).(This is an important factor in determining outcome as adhesions may reform and further surgery may be needed. If a pregnancy occurs in a uterus with IUA, there is a higher likelihood of infertility, miscarriage and pregnancy complications (5). Patients should undergo either HSG, SHG, or in-office hysteroscopy (with as narrow cervical dilation as possible) in order to verify the uterine cavity is free of adhesions. A mid-cycle scan should also be used to measure the endometrial thickness at ovulation. Ideally this should measure 7-8 mm for implantation to be successful. Some women with corrected IUA have thin endometrium which may require hormone treatment to thicken. If adhesions blocking the ostium are present, natural conception is not possible and IVF will be recommended).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:
1. Prospective trials on the effect of intraoperative and postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical and fertility outcome.(I don’t know of doctors who do not use antibiotics during or after operative hysteroscopy. Also, the article states: “…it has been proposed that infection may be a primary cause of IUAs…” Antibiotic prophylaxis is wise for preventing infections whether or not they lead to IUA. However, at this stage, there is actually no evidence to support that most IUAs result from infection, whether frank or subclinical. In fact, there is limited evidence to the contrary (6,7). Also see The subclinical infection myth).2. Prospective trials of adjunctive hormone therapy efficacy with respect to surgical and fertility outcome.(The optimum dosage of estrogen (E2 with or without progestin, P4) and length of treatment have not been studied. Progynova (Estradiol valerate) a synthetic version of a naturally occurring estrogen or Premarin, a combination of around 11 conjugated equine estrogens extracted from pregnant mare urine, are usually used. These compounds have not been compared to each other in trials).
3. Prospective trials of barrier method (IUD, Foley catheter and gel adhesion barriers) efficacy with respect to surgical and fertility outcome.
(Presumably the Cook stent, which is used by some doctors (2), should also be included in trials. Regarding the use of gel adhesion barriers which are potentially the least invasive and risky type of barrier, one questions why there is not more research on their use to prevent IUA from occurring in the first place. If gel barriers are therapeutic for reducing IUA reformation after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis perhaps their use after D&C and other primary intrauterine surgery would reduce the incidence of IUA. There is so far only one study and results show only 10% of women who received Seprafilm after curettage for miscarriage developed IUA vs 50% amongst controls (8)).
4. Stem cells for future treatment: As discussed in a previous blog, some cases are currently not treatable because the extent of damage to the basal endometrium (sometimes curettage even removes part of the underlying myometrium) from which the functional layer regenerates. This leads to persistently thin endometrium or reformation of IUA after corrective surgery and excludes the possibility of carrying a pregnancy. Surrogacy is the only option in such cases. However Dr Chaitanya Nagori and Dr Sonal Panchal of Nagori Institute of Infertility in India claim to have used stem cell technology to thicken the endometrium in women who underwent excessive ‘cleaning’ up of the uterus (ie. a euphemism for D&C), although they do not mention the presence of IUA. The process involved isolating adult stem cells from the bone marrow of the patient, transplanting the purified stem cells into the patient’s uterine cavity under transvaginal sonographic guidance, and stimulating the production of endometrial angiogenic stem cells by administering estrogen before IVF treatment. Using this technique they reportedly were able to increase ‘negligible’ endometrial growth to 6mm three months after the transfer and estrogen therapy. Although they assert that IVF drugs alone did not increase the patient’s endometrial measurement, it remains to be proven whether this effect is due to the post-transplant estrogen treatment or from the stem cell therapy. Nonetheless, the concept of using stem cells for tissue repair in the uterus is intriguing, and possibly the best hope in future for very severe cases of IUA (uterine transplant is another future possibility). This could be more convincing if recurrent IUA was prevented with stem cells following hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. Definitive proof would be obtained if the stem cells and their progeny were biochemically labeled so as to be identifiable from the original tissue. This could be done in animal studies, for example. The great advantage of stem cells is that they have the capacity to differentiate into a range of cells that are necessary to rebuild a normal uterus, from myometrium and endometrium to the blood vessels which supply them with blood and hormones. Furthermore, as the stem cells are derived from the patient’s own bone marrow ie. autologous adult stem cells, there is no risk of either rejection or ethical controversy (as with embryonic stem cells). Unfortunately at this stage there are no published studies on this treatment.
REFERENCES
1. Fritsch H, Ein Fall von volligem Schwaund der Gebormutterhohle nach Auskratzung. Zentralbl Gynaekol 1894; 18:1337-1342.
2. March, CM; Miller, CE. Hysteroscopic lysis of intrauterine adhesions. Ob.Gyn. News 2006; 41(23):36-37. Abstract
3. Palter. SF, High Rates of Endometriosis in Patients With Intrauterine Synechiae (Asherman's Syndrome). Fertility and Sterility 2005; 86 (null):S471-S471. Link
4. Palter S, Spyrou P. Asherman’s syndrome: Etiologic factors, patterns of pregnancy loss, and treatment results. Results from an international registry. Fertility and Sterility 2003; 80(3):36-7. Link
5. March CM. Intrauterine adhesions. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 1995;22(3):491-505. Abstract
6. Jensen, P.A. and Stromme, W.B. Amenorrhea secondary to puerperal curettage (Asherman's syndrome). Am J Obstet Gynecol 1972; 113: 150–4.
7. Polishuk, SO Anteby and D Weinstein, Puerperal endometritis and intrauterine adhesions, Int Surg 1975;60:418–420. Abstract
8. Tsapanos VS, Stathopoulou LP, Papathanassopoulou VS, Tzingounis VA. The role of Seprafilm bioresorbable membrane in the prevention and therapy of endometrial synechiae. Biomed Material Res. 2002;63:10-14. Abstract
Related Links:Good news: Grow endometrium by stem cells. (Times of India)
Recommendation Grading:
Level A: Recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence.
Level B: Recommendations are based on limited or incomsistent scientific evidence.
Level C: Recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Miscarriage management after Asherman’s syndrome
Unfortunately, I can now talk from experience about how miscarriages can be dealt with post Asherman’s syndrome (AS), and what to expect. I lost my pregnancy at 14 weeks due to a trisomy 21 detected by karyotype analysis and QF-PCR of chorionic villi sampling. The first inkling that something was wrong was at the 12 week scan. Actually, the blood serum levels of PAPP-A and bHCG I’d had during the 11th week already showed a problem, but it wasn’t until my ultrasound that I learned of this. The ultrasound only confirmed that things were not right. Only two weeks earlier I’d had another ultrasound and all seemed fine- the heart beat, the CRL, etc. Now the nuchal fold measured 7mm and there was hydrops- an accumulation of fluid around the fetus. I was told there was a high probability that the pregnancy would end spontaneously.
Fast forward to week 14 and there was no longer a heartbeat.
I’d always talked about misoprostol and ironically now I would have to use it myself. There was no way on earth I’d undergo another D&C (suction curettage or whatever you want to called this blind invasive procedure)- the procedure which caused Asherman’s syndrome when I had it 3 years earlier for a blighted ovum. I could not risk exacerbating the condition. If only my initial ObGyn had agreed to treat me with misoprostol I could have avoided all the surgery and heart ache that followed. I’m quite sure I’d have a child by now.
Since I was relatively far into the pregnancy and the fetus had developed to 14 weeks before dying spontaneously, I booked in the hospital for the misoprostol induction. I don’t know which hospitals/ObGyns use misoprostol regularly, however, in the interest of informing women, my procedure was performed at the Royal Hospital for Women in Randwick (Sydney). I’m sure there are other hospitals (and doctors) that are familiar with misoprostol use, and yes, it is completely legal even if it has not been approved by the TGA (Australia's equivalent of the FDA) for gynecological indications for dubious reasons. By the way, the doctor who refused to give me misoprostol works at St George Hospital. I’d be interested to know if that hospital carries out medical management of miscarriage- please drop me a line or comment below if you know.
In total, I was given a dose of 1 mg (milligram) of misoprostol over the course of a day. Initially, one pill ie. 200 mcg (vaginal) was given to test for any adverse reactions, allergies etc. I began cramping but there was no bleeding. About 5 hours later cervical dilation was checked (closed) and I was given 400 mcg (2 pills). The cramping intensified, but again, there was no bleeding. Shortly after my third and final dose, about 5 hours after the last dose, I began having strong contractions. It was quite painful so I’d definitely recommend panadeine forte. Strangely, there was still no bleeding unlike with my first miscarriage which began like a period. About 40 minutes after my final dose, the waters broke and amniotic fluid spilled out soaking the bed. After this point the pain stopped although I was still feeling crampy for at least a week afterwards. Roughly half an hour after the waters broke, I delivered the tiny baby. The umbilical cord was thin and weak and broke off from the placenta. It is at this point that I began bleeding. I continued bleeding heavily throughout the night and the next day. I also bled strongly for about a week afterwards and on and off during the following week. The placenta should have come out soon afterwards but it was not until 3.5 hours passed that it did. Luckily I’d discussed the possibility of retained placenta previously with my ObGyn and we agreed to wait it out (normally most doctors would jump at the opportunity to do a D&C in this situation) while the nurses and midwives monitored me closely for signs of infection and hemorrhage. As it’s difficult to know if the placenta is complete on visual inspection, and women with a history of Asherman’s syndrome- even after surgical correction- are at an increased risk of placental conditions such as placenta accreta, percreta, increta, and previa, I knew retained placenta was a possibility.
Before the placenta delivered my temperature reached 40 C and the midwife was somewhat concerned, however misoprostol itself can cause fever. The morning after, my blood pressure was 90 on 60 (normally it is around 110-115/65-70) and I was told this could be due to blood loss.
The next morning I underwent an ultrasound to check for retained placental fragments. Around 32 mls of material was found in the uterus but it was impossible to tell whether this was simply blood and blood clots, or if there were retained products of conception (RPOC). Doppler flow analysis suggested that there were retained placental fragments in the posterior of the uterus- the same area where the placenta had implanted in this pregnancy. I had another ultrasound a week after the first. The second ultrasound showed that the fluid in the uterus had roughly halved, but it was still not possible to tell for sure via ultrasound whether there were retained products.
In the following week I bled little despite having around 18 mls of content in my uterus so I became concerned that perhaps there were retained fragments. This would not be a surprise given my pregnancy reached second trimester and my previous history of Asherman’s syndrome. I contacted my trusted Asherman’s syndrome specialist for a hysteroscopic procedure to remove any retained fragments of placenta. This procedure was done 3 weeks after the misoprostol treatment. It turns out I did have many retained fragments which were gently scraped off using the hysteroscope itself. Luckily I did not have any clinical infection from the retained tissue (perhaps just 'subclinical' ;) ?). There were no adhesions. I was given prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection after the surgery.
I should also mention that to prevent any possible adhesions, I was prescribed 2mg/day progynova (a synthetic estrogen) for 28 days by an Asherman’s syndrome specialist. The other option was Premarin (0.625 mg). These help the endometrium grow and thereby prevent uterine walls from adhering in the case of scarring.
I’m now awaiting my next period after which I’ll have a mid cycle scan to measure endometrial thickness at ovulation, and either an in--office hysteroscopy or an HSG to check for adhesions. Hopefully the removal of RPOCs did not cause any scarring.
Note that the dose of misoprostol I was given was decided according to my pregnancy stage (14 weeks) and status (fetal demise). Doses vary and guidelines should be adhered to.
Here is a summary of my suggestions (as a non MD) if you find yourself in this situation:
1. Don’t have a D&C for a miscarriage as it can cause further damage especially if you have had AS previously. Also, your endometrium may get thinner each time you have a D&C.
2. Misoprostol helps clear out most of the uterine contents. It is more painful than a D&C but worth it in the long run- unless you are not interested in preserving your fertility. NOTE: If you have had a previous Cesarean section or uterine perforation or severe AS, discuss with your ObGyn to see if misoprostol is safe for you (or you may need to take a lower dose than what I was given).
3. You should have estrogen therapy to prevent adhesions from forming. I'm not sure if this is 100% necessary but Asherman's specialists recommend it. Some women didn't use it because of adverse reactions to estrogen (blood clots etc.) and they did not develop adhesions.
4. You will probably have retained tissue and require a hysteroscopy (not a blind D&C!!) to remove it. In most cases if you have had a missed miscarriage you will need to either use misoprostol or, alternatively, wait to miscarry before hysteroscopy can be effective, otherwise there is just too much tissue and blood to work with.
5. Have a mid cycle scan to measure endometrial thickness after your first post-treatment period and always check that your uterine cavity is free of adhesions before you attempt to conceive again just in case. An in-office hysteroscopy is best but failing that, an HSG can be done.
There are also some implications that can be speculated:
1. It may take a few hours for the placenta to deliver when using misoprostol post AS if you are beyond the first trimester.
2. It is likely that if you have had AS, you will have retained products after every future miscarriage. Hysteroscopic removal of tissue allows the doctor to view your uterus as he/she clears it. Note: Hysteroscopy itself can cause complications if undertaken by an unexperienced or unskilled doctor. Please see only a highly experienced specialist.
3. You should anticipate that you may have placenta accreta in a future pregnancy particularly if the placenta does not deliver when expected or you have had confirmed RPOC. Obviously, any woman with past AS should be monitored throughout their pregnancy by a high-risk Obstetrician.
I will try to write about the known pregnancy complications in women with a history of AS in the near future.
There are two more interesting points: Initially I believed that I may not get RPOC because the placenta had implanted in a region which was never affected by intrauterine adhesions. The fact that it is possible to get RPOC in a new, previously unaffected area suggests that perhaps the placenta implants deeply because the endometrium is slightly thinner than it should be ideally. Or maybe blood flow to the uterus is somehow affected and in order for the pregnancy to establish the placenta needs to invade the endometrium more deeply.
Secondly, I have to question once again whether there is any truth at all to the unfounded claim by certain doctors that Asherman’s syndrome can occur ‘spontaneously’ after miscarriage. I would have to have actual evidence to believe this. In my own case I had no adhesions 2 weeks after miscarrying using misoprostol-and this is even after having had intrauterine adhesions in the past (from a D&C). In other words they did not reoccur, nor did any new ones develop. I suspect that if I was treated with blind D&C rather than misoprostol, lo and behold I would develop ‘spontaneous’ adhesions in a new region: the posterior region of my uterus (where the RPOC were). It doesn't make sense for such an evolutionarily destructive mechanism to occur in nature (unless extremely rarely).
In retrospect, I have to wonder why my first Obgyn (ie the one who caused me to have AS) so steadfastly rejected my request to use misoprostol instead of a D&C when it can be used even until the third trimester. He made me believe that it could only be used until 8 or 10 weeks. I also wonder why, as a doctor who was aware about Asherman’s syndrome, my strong concern about acquiring it, and knew of the Asherman’s syndrome support group, he did not refer me for a hysteroscopic removal the supposed RPOC I had? What, may I ask, is the purpose of informing gynecologists about Asherman’s syndrome if they will continue to perform damaging D&Cs while refusing to offer other options? ‘Consent’ for D&Cs is hardly possible when other options are not made available. Please, let us not make Obstetricians/gynecolgists believe that treatment is so simple and effective that causing Asherman’s syndrome is just a little glitch with few consequences for the patient.
Finally, my experience has shown once again that prevention of Asherman’s syndrome is best: the condition leads to a cycle of costly and lengthy complications with retained products (not to mention possible obstetric complications in future pregnancies) which could be avoided if medical management (ie. misoprostol) was used in the first instance.
Fast forward to week 14 and there was no longer a heartbeat.
I’d always talked about misoprostol and ironically now I would have to use it myself. There was no way on earth I’d undergo another D&C (suction curettage or whatever you want to called this blind invasive procedure)- the procedure which caused Asherman’s syndrome when I had it 3 years earlier for a blighted ovum. I could not risk exacerbating the condition. If only my initial ObGyn had agreed to treat me with misoprostol I could have avoided all the surgery and heart ache that followed. I’m quite sure I’d have a child by now.
Since I was relatively far into the pregnancy and the fetus had developed to 14 weeks before dying spontaneously, I booked in the hospital for the misoprostol induction. I don’t know which hospitals/ObGyns use misoprostol regularly, however, in the interest of informing women, my procedure was performed at the Royal Hospital for Women in Randwick (Sydney). I’m sure there are other hospitals (and doctors) that are familiar with misoprostol use, and yes, it is completely legal even if it has not been approved by the TGA (Australia's equivalent of the FDA) for gynecological indications for dubious reasons. By the way, the doctor who refused to give me misoprostol works at St George Hospital. I’d be interested to know if that hospital carries out medical management of miscarriage- please drop me a line or comment below if you know.
In total, I was given a dose of 1 mg (milligram) of misoprostol over the course of a day. Initially, one pill ie. 200 mcg (vaginal) was given to test for any adverse reactions, allergies etc. I began cramping but there was no bleeding. About 5 hours later cervical dilation was checked (closed) and I was given 400 mcg (2 pills). The cramping intensified, but again, there was no bleeding. Shortly after my third and final dose, about 5 hours after the last dose, I began having strong contractions. It was quite painful so I’d definitely recommend panadeine forte. Strangely, there was still no bleeding unlike with my first miscarriage which began like a period. About 40 minutes after my final dose, the waters broke and amniotic fluid spilled out soaking the bed. After this point the pain stopped although I was still feeling crampy for at least a week afterwards. Roughly half an hour after the waters broke, I delivered the tiny baby. The umbilical cord was thin and weak and broke off from the placenta. It is at this point that I began bleeding. I continued bleeding heavily throughout the night and the next day. I also bled strongly for about a week afterwards and on and off during the following week. The placenta should have come out soon afterwards but it was not until 3.5 hours passed that it did. Luckily I’d discussed the possibility of retained placenta previously with my ObGyn and we agreed to wait it out (normally most doctors would jump at the opportunity to do a D&C in this situation) while the nurses and midwives monitored me closely for signs of infection and hemorrhage. As it’s difficult to know if the placenta is complete on visual inspection, and women with a history of Asherman’s syndrome- even after surgical correction- are at an increased risk of placental conditions such as placenta accreta, percreta, increta, and previa, I knew retained placenta was a possibility.
Before the placenta delivered my temperature reached 40 C and the midwife was somewhat concerned, however misoprostol itself can cause fever. The morning after, my blood pressure was 90 on 60 (normally it is around 110-115/65-70) and I was told this could be due to blood loss.
The next morning I underwent an ultrasound to check for retained placental fragments. Around 32 mls of material was found in the uterus but it was impossible to tell whether this was simply blood and blood clots, or if there were retained products of conception (RPOC). Doppler flow analysis suggested that there were retained placental fragments in the posterior of the uterus- the same area where the placenta had implanted in this pregnancy. I had another ultrasound a week after the first. The second ultrasound showed that the fluid in the uterus had roughly halved, but it was still not possible to tell for sure via ultrasound whether there were retained products.
In the following week I bled little despite having around 18 mls of content in my uterus so I became concerned that perhaps there were retained fragments. This would not be a surprise given my pregnancy reached second trimester and my previous history of Asherman’s syndrome. I contacted my trusted Asherman’s syndrome specialist for a hysteroscopic procedure to remove any retained fragments of placenta. This procedure was done 3 weeks after the misoprostol treatment. It turns out I did have many retained fragments which were gently scraped off using the hysteroscope itself. Luckily I did not have any clinical infection from the retained tissue (perhaps just 'subclinical' ;) ?). There were no adhesions. I was given prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection after the surgery.
I should also mention that to prevent any possible adhesions, I was prescribed 2mg/day progynova (a synthetic estrogen) for 28 days by an Asherman’s syndrome specialist. The other option was Premarin (0.625 mg). These help the endometrium grow and thereby prevent uterine walls from adhering in the case of scarring.
I’m now awaiting my next period after which I’ll have a mid cycle scan to measure endometrial thickness at ovulation, and either an in--office hysteroscopy or an HSG to check for adhesions. Hopefully the removal of RPOCs did not cause any scarring.
Note that the dose of misoprostol I was given was decided according to my pregnancy stage (14 weeks) and status (fetal demise). Doses vary and guidelines should be adhered to.
Here is a summary of my suggestions (as a non MD) if you find yourself in this situation:
1. Don’t have a D&C for a miscarriage as it can cause further damage especially if you have had AS previously. Also, your endometrium may get thinner each time you have a D&C.
2. Misoprostol helps clear out most of the uterine contents. It is more painful than a D&C but worth it in the long run- unless you are not interested in preserving your fertility. NOTE: If you have had a previous Cesarean section or uterine perforation or severe AS, discuss with your ObGyn to see if misoprostol is safe for you (or you may need to take a lower dose than what I was given).
3. You should have estrogen therapy to prevent adhesions from forming. I'm not sure if this is 100% necessary but Asherman's specialists recommend it. Some women didn't use it because of adverse reactions to estrogen (blood clots etc.) and they did not develop adhesions.
4. You will probably have retained tissue and require a hysteroscopy (not a blind D&C!!) to remove it. In most cases if you have had a missed miscarriage you will need to either use misoprostol or, alternatively, wait to miscarry before hysteroscopy can be effective, otherwise there is just too much tissue and blood to work with.
5. Have a mid cycle scan to measure endometrial thickness after your first post-treatment period and always check that your uterine cavity is free of adhesions before you attempt to conceive again just in case. An in-office hysteroscopy is best but failing that, an HSG can be done.
There are also some implications that can be speculated:
1. It may take a few hours for the placenta to deliver when using misoprostol post AS if you are beyond the first trimester.
2. It is likely that if you have had AS, you will have retained products after every future miscarriage. Hysteroscopic removal of tissue allows the doctor to view your uterus as he/she clears it. Note: Hysteroscopy itself can cause complications if undertaken by an unexperienced or unskilled doctor. Please see only a highly experienced specialist.
3. You should anticipate that you may have placenta accreta in a future pregnancy particularly if the placenta does not deliver when expected or you have had confirmed RPOC. Obviously, any woman with past AS should be monitored throughout their pregnancy by a high-risk Obstetrician.
I will try to write about the known pregnancy complications in women with a history of AS in the near future.
There are two more interesting points: Initially I believed that I may not get RPOC because the placenta had implanted in a region which was never affected by intrauterine adhesions. The fact that it is possible to get RPOC in a new, previously unaffected area suggests that perhaps the placenta implants deeply because the endometrium is slightly thinner than it should be ideally. Or maybe blood flow to the uterus is somehow affected and in order for the pregnancy to establish the placenta needs to invade the endometrium more deeply.
Secondly, I have to question once again whether there is any truth at all to the unfounded claim by certain doctors that Asherman’s syndrome can occur ‘spontaneously’ after miscarriage. I would have to have actual evidence to believe this. In my own case I had no adhesions 2 weeks after miscarrying using misoprostol-and this is even after having had intrauterine adhesions in the past (from a D&C). In other words they did not reoccur, nor did any new ones develop. I suspect that if I was treated with blind D&C rather than misoprostol, lo and behold I would develop ‘spontaneous’ adhesions in a new region: the posterior region of my uterus (where the RPOC were). It doesn't make sense for such an evolutionarily destructive mechanism to occur in nature (unless extremely rarely).
In retrospect, I have to wonder why my first Obgyn (ie the one who caused me to have AS) so steadfastly rejected my request to use misoprostol instead of a D&C when it can be used even until the third trimester. He made me believe that it could only be used until 8 or 10 weeks. I also wonder why, as a doctor who was aware about Asherman’s syndrome, my strong concern about acquiring it, and knew of the Asherman’s syndrome support group, he did not refer me for a hysteroscopic removal the supposed RPOC I had? What, may I ask, is the purpose of informing gynecologists about Asherman’s syndrome if they will continue to perform damaging D&Cs while refusing to offer other options? ‘Consent’ for D&Cs is hardly possible when other options are not made available. Please, let us not make Obstetricians/gynecolgists believe that treatment is so simple and effective that causing Asherman’s syndrome is just a little glitch with few consequences for the patient.
Finally, my experience has shown once again that prevention of Asherman’s syndrome is best: the condition leads to a cycle of costly and lengthy complications with retained products (not to mention possible obstetric complications in future pregnancies) which could be avoided if medical management (ie. misoprostol) was used in the first instance.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Treatment of Asherman's syndrome is not a panacea (Part I)
Not all that long ago Asherman’s syndrome patients may have been told to forget about ever having a(nother) child. Treatment has come a long way with the advent of hysteroscopy, hormonal treatment, stents and adhesive barriers. It’s not surprising that before these were available, success rates were very low and often more damage was incurred from ‘treatment’ resulting in worse outcomes. One of the reasons for this is that some doctors used to treat Asherman’s syndrome by performing a blind D&C to break apart intrauterine adhesions they couldn’t even see. It’s hard to imagine why anyone would think that performing the same procedure as the one which usually causes the condition could fix things, but lots of doctors did- and some continue to do so with disastrous consequences.
Some doctors might still have the attitude that anyone whom they cannot treat successfully should give up hope, even if they are not highly skilled or experienced in the treatment of intrauterine adhesions. However, a new and equally detrimental view is being encouraged among sufferers: that treatment has come so far that anyone who is diagnosed stands a very good chance of conceiving and delivering a healthy baby (provided they go to the right doctors). While it’s true that some doctors have much more training, experience and expertise in the treatment of Asherman’s syndrome, the harsh reality is that the overall success rate is not above 50% (and lower for the moderate to severe cases)- even with the best doctors. If anyone tells you that there are doctors who have higher success rates with moderate to severe cases than 50%, they are either not being truthful or simply don’t know (or prefer not to accept) the reality.
It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but women need to be made aware of this fact. Not to crush any optimism, but to give realistic expectations, and perhaps to avoid the costs and heartbreak of ‘unexplained infertility’ following ‘successful’ treatment. There is a very fine line between giving encouragement and creating false hope. You may read of success stories, you may hear of women overcoming seemingly astonishing odds, and photos of women beaming with their babies, praising their ‘miracle’ doctors, but make no mistake: these are the faces and stories of less than 50% of women who are diagnosed with IUA and get treatment by the best doctors. But they do not reflect the reality for more than half of women diagnosed with Asherman’s syndrome. The latter are the women who fade into the background, the ones doctors and patients alike would like to forget about, or blame the lack of success on other reasons. Let us not underestimate the significance of the initial trauma underlying the Asherman’s syndrome. Some of us got a worse deal than the others. Worst of all, there is no clear way of predicting whether treatment will be successful or even knowing if it was successful. The only way to know is to try to conceive. If you do have a baby, your treatment was successful. If you don’t, your treatment may not have fully restored your fertility (or you have other causes of unexplained infertility). But let’s not exaggerate the likelihood of the latter- why would someone who was previously capable of getting pregnant suddenly have ‘unexplained infertility’ after having had Asherman’s syndrome? Fibrosis from Asherman’s syndrome can affect blood flow to the endometrium and reduce the chance of implantation or maintaining a pregnancy. I’m not saying one should not seek treatment. By all means, please do whatever is necessary to improve your chances of regaining your fertility! But don’t be too surprised if you don’t end up with a success story.
The attitude of the medical community is also to blame for encouraging the view that treatment is the best answer to the problem. For reasons which evade me, they seem to think it is more logical to subject all women to blind surgery causing Asherman's syndrome in a non-negligible proportion of them, and then to attempt surgical correction and hormonal therapy on those who do develop IUA in the hope that at most 50% of them will have a child (30-40% with moderate to severe IUA, 80% with mild IUA). Not to mention that these future pregnancies are at risk of serious complications, like placenta accreta, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, cervical incompetence etc. How logical is this? What is the advantage or logic in performing two (or more) expensive, difficult and potentially risky uterine surgeries- one which can cause damage, and one (or more) to repair the damage of the first surgery? Why not nip it at the bud and not cause damage to begin with?
Why not simply use drugs or hysteroscopy to empty the uterus, preventing scarring in the first place? When you consider that there are ways of emptying the uterus without blind surgery (either by using drugs like misoprostol or mifepristone, or visually guided hysteroscopy) the surgical approach makes no sense whatsoever. Is the approach of D&C followed by corrective surgery in the best interest of patients? Absolutely not.
In my next post I will include modern studies on outcomes of treatment as evidence.
Continued in Part II
Some doctors might still have the attitude that anyone whom they cannot treat successfully should give up hope, even if they are not highly skilled or experienced in the treatment of intrauterine adhesions. However, a new and equally detrimental view is being encouraged among sufferers: that treatment has come so far that anyone who is diagnosed stands a very good chance of conceiving and delivering a healthy baby (provided they go to the right doctors). While it’s true that some doctors have much more training, experience and expertise in the treatment of Asherman’s syndrome, the harsh reality is that the overall success rate is not above 50% (and lower for the moderate to severe cases)- even with the best doctors. If anyone tells you that there are doctors who have higher success rates with moderate to severe cases than 50%, they are either not being truthful or simply don’t know (or prefer not to accept) the reality.
It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but women need to be made aware of this fact. Not to crush any optimism, but to give realistic expectations, and perhaps to avoid the costs and heartbreak of ‘unexplained infertility’ following ‘successful’ treatment. There is a very fine line between giving encouragement and creating false hope. You may read of success stories, you may hear of women overcoming seemingly astonishing odds, and photos of women beaming with their babies, praising their ‘miracle’ doctors, but make no mistake: these are the faces and stories of less than 50% of women who are diagnosed with IUA and get treatment by the best doctors. But they do not reflect the reality for more than half of women diagnosed with Asherman’s syndrome. The latter are the women who fade into the background, the ones doctors and patients alike would like to forget about, or blame the lack of success on other reasons. Let us not underestimate the significance of the initial trauma underlying the Asherman’s syndrome. Some of us got a worse deal than the others. Worst of all, there is no clear way of predicting whether treatment will be successful or even knowing if it was successful. The only way to know is to try to conceive. If you do have a baby, your treatment was successful. If you don’t, your treatment may not have fully restored your fertility (or you have other causes of unexplained infertility). But let’s not exaggerate the likelihood of the latter- why would someone who was previously capable of getting pregnant suddenly have ‘unexplained infertility’ after having had Asherman’s syndrome? Fibrosis from Asherman’s syndrome can affect blood flow to the endometrium and reduce the chance of implantation or maintaining a pregnancy. I’m not saying one should not seek treatment. By all means, please do whatever is necessary to improve your chances of regaining your fertility! But don’t be too surprised if you don’t end up with a success story.
The attitude of the medical community is also to blame for encouraging the view that treatment is the best answer to the problem. For reasons which evade me, they seem to think it is more logical to subject all women to blind surgery causing Asherman's syndrome in a non-negligible proportion of them, and then to attempt surgical correction and hormonal therapy on those who do develop IUA in the hope that at most 50% of them will have a child (30-40% with moderate to severe IUA, 80% with mild IUA). Not to mention that these future pregnancies are at risk of serious complications, like placenta accreta, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, cervical incompetence etc. How logical is this? What is the advantage or logic in performing two (or more) expensive, difficult and potentially risky uterine surgeries- one which can cause damage, and one (or more) to repair the damage of the first surgery? Why not nip it at the bud and not cause damage to begin with?
Why not simply use drugs or hysteroscopy to empty the uterus, preventing scarring in the first place? When you consider that there are ways of emptying the uterus without blind surgery (either by using drugs like misoprostol or mifepristone, or visually guided hysteroscopy) the surgical approach makes no sense whatsoever. Is the approach of D&C followed by corrective surgery in the best interest of patients? Absolutely not.
In my next post I will include modern studies on outcomes of treatment as evidence.
Continued in Part II
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)