Purpose: To evaluate the impact of endocervical and decidual polypectomy on obstetrical outcomes of pregnant women. Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scielo, EMBASE, Cochrane Library at the CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS were searched from inception to April 2021. No language or geographical restrictions were applied. Inclusion criteria regarded observational studies concerning pregnant women with a cervical lesion who underwent cervical polypectomy. Co-primary outcomes were incidence of late pregnancy loss and preterm birth in women with endocervical or decidual polypectomy as well as polypectomy versus expectant management. Random effect meta-analyses to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were performed. Quality assessment of included papers was performed using Newcastle–Ottawa Scale criteria. Results: Three studies, with data provided for 3097 women, were included in quantitative analysis, with comparisons between endocervical and decidual polyps extracted from two studies and 156 patients. After a first trimester endocervical or decidual polypectomy, no significant differences were found for late pregnancy losses (RR 0.29 [95% CI 0.05, 1.80], I2 = 11%). Risk for preterm birth was significantly higher for decidual polyps’ removal (RR 6.13 [95% CI 2.57, 14.59], I2 = 0%). One paper compared cervical polypectomy vs expectant management, with increased incidence of late pregnancy loss (4/142 vs 5/2799; p < 0.001) and preterm birth (19/142 vs 115/2799; p < 0.001) in women subjected to polypectomy. Conclusions: Evidence regarding the removal of cervical polyps in pregnancy is extremely limited. However, the removal of either decidual or endocervical polyps seems associated with increased risk of pregnancy loss and preterm birth, with increased preterm birth risk following endocervical rather than decidual polypectomy.
Surgical management of endocervical and decidual polyps during pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis
Riemma G.;Cianci S.;La Verde M.;Cobellis L.;De Franciscis P.
2022
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of endocervical and decidual polypectomy on obstetrical outcomes of pregnant women. Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scielo, EMBASE, Cochrane Library at the CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS were searched from inception to April 2021. No language or geographical restrictions were applied. Inclusion criteria regarded observational studies concerning pregnant women with a cervical lesion who underwent cervical polypectomy. Co-primary outcomes were incidence of late pregnancy loss and preterm birth in women with endocervical or decidual polypectomy as well as polypectomy versus expectant management. Random effect meta-analyses to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were performed. Quality assessment of included papers was performed using Newcastle–Ottawa Scale criteria. Results: Three studies, with data provided for 3097 women, were included in quantitative analysis, with comparisons between endocervical and decidual polyps extracted from two studies and 156 patients. After a first trimester endocervical or decidual polypectomy, no significant differences were found for late pregnancy losses (RR 0.29 [95% CI 0.05, 1.80], I2 = 11%). Risk for preterm birth was significantly higher for decidual polyps’ removal (RR 6.13 [95% CI 2.57, 14.59], I2 = 0%). One paper compared cervical polypectomy vs expectant management, with increased incidence of late pregnancy loss (4/142 vs 5/2799; p < 0.001) and preterm birth (19/142 vs 115/2799; p < 0.001) in women subjected to polypectomy. Conclusions: Evidence regarding the removal of cervical polyps in pregnancy is extremely limited. However, the removal of either decidual or endocervical polyps seems associated with increased risk of pregnancy loss and preterm birth, with increased preterm birth risk following endocervical rather than decidual polypectomy.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
