Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients with repeated implantation failure: which route is best?†

The aim of this study was to assess whether the dual administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) increases the effect of only systemic administration in patients with RIF. This retrospective study included 111 infertile normoresponder cases with two or more unsuccessful in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatments, despite the transfer of good quality embryos. Patients were divided into three groups according to using G-CSF and administration route; Group 1 included patients who received subcutaneous (SC) G-CSF only (n = 38), Group 2 comprised patients who received both intrauterine (IU) and SC G-CSF (n = 39), the control group included patients who did not receive G-CSF who were matched by age (n = 34). The IU route of G-CSF was employed on ovulation triggering day. G-CSF was administered via an IU insemination catheter. SC injection was started on the day of oocyte retrieval and administered for 15 days at 100,000 IU/kg. Foetal cardiac activity (clinical pregnancy) was present in 50 patients (46.2%) after embryo transfer, with 20 patients included in SC group (Group 1) (52.6%), 25 in SC + IU group (Group 2) (64.1%) and 8 (23.5%) in control group and significant difference was observed between groups (p: .001). Pregnancy resulted in live birth in 43 patients (39.8%), with 13 patients belonging in Group 1 (34.2%), 25 in Group 2 (61.5%) and 8 (23.5%) in control group; significant differences were observed between groups (p: .001). In conclusion, our results showed that dual administration of G-CSF was significantly more effective that the SC only method.Impact statement What is already known on this subject? A number of studies reported the possible benefits of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration in recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss patients; however, it is unclear which administration route is better. What do the results of this study add? Our results showed that G-CSF is a promising and safe agent for increasing live birth rates in patients with RIF. Additionally, dual administration is considered the better method than SC only administration. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Clinicians should consider a combination of IU use before ovulation triggering with SC administration starting from the day of oocyte collection for using G-CSF for the treatment of recurrent implantation failure. Additionally, our data show the need for research in the field of administration route of G-CSF for RIF. We suggest that further studies be performed in this field

Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for Hysterectomy: A Single-Institution Experience

Objective: We aimed to compare surgical outcomes and postoperative complications among different hysterectomy approaches such as total abdominal hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy, multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy. Study Design: This retrospective, single institution, case control study was carried out at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Baskent University in Ankara, Turkey. We evaluated 86 consecutive patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions. Results: A total of 86 women underwent hysterectomy: 20 (23.3%) total abdominal hysterectomy, 20 (23.3%) vaginal hysterectomy, 27 (31.3%) multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and 19 (22.1%) single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy using a transumbilical single-port system. There was no significant difference in uterine size between groups (Z=5.705; p=0.127). A statistically significant (p<0.001) difference in operation time (duration of surgery) was observed among the following groups. The duration of surgery for the multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy groups was similar, with these two laparoscopic procedures requiring significantly more time than total abdominal hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy procedures. There was no statistically significant difference in between hemoglobin levels before and after operation between groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in intraoperative and postoperative complications. Six patients experienced complications, one intraoperative and five postoperative. Intraoperative complication was ureter injury in single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy group. The postoperative complication rate was 5.8% (5 cases) in 86 patients. Perirectal abscess in one patient and wound infection in two patients occurred in total abdominal hysterectomy group (15%). Urinary tract infection in one patient and vaginal cuff cellulitis in one patient occurred in vaginal hysterectomy group (4%). No complications were reported in multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy groups. Post-surgery, all patients who underwent single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy reported that they were satisfied with their incision and cosmetic results. Conclusions: When technically feasible, multiport access laparoscopic hysterectomy, and single-port access laparoscopic hysterectomy may be performed instead f total abdominal hysterectomy because of rapid recovery and shorter hospitalization however there are longer operating time