Administration of single-dose GnRH agonist in the luteal phase in ICSI cycles: a meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The effects of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) administered in the luteal phase remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of the administration of a single-dose of GnRH-a in the luteal phase on ICSI clinical outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The research strategy included the online search of databases. Only randomized studies were included. The outcomes analyzed were implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per transfer and ongoing pregnancy rate. The fixed effects model was used for odds ratio. In all trials, a single dose of GnRH-a was administered at day 5/6 after ICSI procedures.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All cycles presented statistically significantly higher rates of implantation (P < 0.0001), CPR per transfer (P = 0.006) and ongoing pregnancy (P = 0.02) in the group that received luteal-phase GnRH-a administration than in the control group (without luteal-phase-GnRH-a administration). When meta-analysis was carried out only in trials that had used long GnRH-a ovarian stimulation protocol, CPR per transfer (P = 0.06) and ongoing pregnancy (P = 0.23) rates were not significantly different between the groups, but implantation rate was significant higher (P = 0.02) in the group that received luteal-phase-GnRH-a administration. On the other hand, the results from trials that had used GnRH antagonist multi-dose ovarian stimulation protocol showed statistically significantly higher implantation (P = 0.0002), CPR per transfer (P = 0.04) and ongoing pregnancy rate (P = 0.04) in the luteal-phase-GnRH-a administration group. The majority of the results presented heterogeneity.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings demonstrate that the luteal-phase single-dose GnRH-a administration can increase implantation rate in all cycles and CPR per transfer and ongoing pregnancy rate in cycles with GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation protocol. Nevertheless, by considering the heterogeneity between the trials, it seems premature to recommend the use of GnRH-a in the luteal phase. Additional randomized controlled trials are necessary before evidence-based recommendations can be provided.</p

Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

BACKGROUND: The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting. METHODS: Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups. RESULTS: Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery

Genetic aspects of human male infertility: the frequency of chromosomal abnormalities and Y chromosome microdeletions in severe male factor infertility

Objective: The main purpose of this, study is to detect the frequency and type of both chromosomal abnormalities and Y chromosome microdeletions in patients with severe male factor infertility and fertile control subjects. The association between the genetic abnormality and clinical parameters was also evaluated. Methods: This study was carried out in 208 infertile and 20 fertile men. Results of 208 patients, 1 19 had non-obstructive azoospermia and 89 had severe oligoasthenoteratozoospermia (OAT). Seventeen out of 119 (14.3%) azoospermic patients and two out of 89 (2.2%) patients with OAT had Y chromosome microdeletions. In total, 19 cases with deletions were detected in 208 infertile men, with a frequency of 9.1%. The AZFc locus, mainly DAZ gene cluster was the most frequently deleted region. Five other cases with azoospermia (4.2%) and two cases with OAT (2.2%) had a chromosomal abnormality, with a total number of seven (3.4%). Including Y chromosome deletions and structural chromosome abnormalities, the rate of genetic abnormalities was 12.5% (26/208) in our patients. On the other hand, 20 men with proven fertility and fathers of five cases with microdeletions were genetically normal. Y chromosome deletions and chromosomal abnormalities were associated with various histological alterations in testis. Sertoli cell-only (SCO) syndrome and maturation arrest predominated in these cases, whereas hypospermatogenesis occurred more frequently in genetically normal patients. Conclusion: Various chromosomal abnormalities and deletions of Y chromosome can cause spermatogenic breakdown resulting in chromosomally derived infertility. All these findings strongly;support the recommendation of genetic screening of infertile patients. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd