Submited on: 10 Jul 2013 07:55:29 AM GMT
Published on: 10 Jul 2013 09:14:50 AM GMT
 
Two Case Presentations
Posted by Dr. Mohammad Othman on 12 Jul 2013 03:14:29 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Premature ovarian failure is a rare complication of uterine artery embolisation. It is an important subject that needs every paper to realise how big is the problem.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No not novel there is a lot of references even mentioned in the paper have the same claim:

    3. Hovsepian DM, Siskin GP, Bonn J, Cardella JF, Clark TW, Lampmann LE, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for uterine artery embolization for symptomatic leiomyomata. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009; 20: S193-9.
    4. Walker WJ, Pelage JP. Uterine artery embolisation for symptomatic fibroids: clinical results in 400 women with imaging follow up. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 109:1262–72.
    5. Chrisman HB, Saker MB, Ryu RK, Nemcek AA, Jr., Gerbie MV, Milad MP, et al. The impact of uterine fibroid embolization on res6umption of menses and ovarian function. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000; 11: 699-703.
    6. Payne JF, Robboy SJ, Haney AF. Embolic microspheres within ovarian arterial vasculature after uterine artery embolization. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 883-6.
    7. Hehenkamp WJ, Volkers NA, Broekmans FJ, de Jong FH, Themmen AP, Birnie E, et al. Loss of ovarian reserve after uterine artery embolization: a randomized comparison with hysterectomy. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1996-2005.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes, perfectly placed and the list of events going in its way in perfect harmony, even the evidence is not very strong and weakend by the small number of cases


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes, but the presence of only two cases weaken this claim but with all the evidence in the literature this is a good supporting evidence


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Yes, I would like to see all the ivestigation in a table and a picture of the us done for the patients


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    It is a perfect paper but not outstanding


  • Other Comments:

    As a prelimanery work that is a good paper. I wish to see a review of all the papers in the subject followed by a large scale randomised clinical trial.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    As a Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Author and Referee

  • How to cite:  Othman M .Two Case Presentations[Review of the article 'Premature Ovarian Failure After Uterine Artery Embolization ' by Chung S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002795
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The authors have tried to present two case reports ofpatients who underwent UAE both on the older side first a 42 year parient para 1 and 2nd at 37 year infertile patient with fibroid along with andometriosis and found development of menopause following UAE which is an accepted complication following UAE(uterine artery embolization) especially in women undergoing bilateral UAE and incidence further increases with ovarian collaterals to the uterine myma but i feel that ijn the second patient to much risk was taken by performing a repeat UAE in a patient who gave a vhistory of severe PPH following pregnancy after first UAE and then conceiving following IVF with the known risks of UAE.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No 1)Kaump GR,Spies GB.The impact of uterine artery embolization on ovarian function.J Vasc Interv RAadiol 2013;24(4):459-67.2)Qu X,Cheng Z,Yang W,Xu L,Dai H,Hu L.Contrlled clinical trial assesing the effect of laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion on ovarian reserve.J Minim Invasive Gynecl 2010;17(1):47-52.3)Berkane N,Moutafff-Borie C.Impact of previous uterine artery embolization on fertility.Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2010;22(3):242-7.4) Tropeano G,Di Stasi C,Amoroso S,Gualano MR,Bonomo L,Scambia G.Longterm effects of uterine fibroid embolization on ovsarian reserve:a prospective cohort study.Fertil Steril 2010;94:2296-300.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Please correct the english in line no 22 in case report no 1 that is instead of angiography revealed hypertrophied and tortuous bothuterine arteries make it As revealed by angiography both uterine arteries were hypertrophied and tortuous and instead of the women were used 355-500 line -make it 355-500 and 500-700um PVA particles were used in the women.In case report 2in last paragraph instead of she was performed embolization -write An embolization was performed twice on her because of infertility and PPH.Next line instead of after 2 years later aged 40 yrs make it ,Two yrss later at 40 yrs age the woman suffered from hot flushes and amenorrhea.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No,it is already well established that in younger women chance of decrease in ovarian reserve is much less and more in elder women and needs to correct the language mistakes and feel a lot of risk has been taken unnecassarily in the 2nd case despite patients conception by performing UAE again and risking severe complications in that particular patient where other alternative methods like mifepristone/asoprisnil should have been tried rather than rerisking this procedure.


  • Other Comments:

    Recently trials of asoprisnil a selective progesterone receptor modulator are going w2hich instead of mifepristine has both partial agonistic as well as antagonistic activities and may acts against the tumour suppressor gene and hsas been shown to be effective in reducing volume of fibroids in human models as well and needs more trials rather than the risks involved as much as pulmonary embolism and severe sepsis with 3-4 mortalities reported though maybe technical faults but it is important tyo look for medical options.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have been working in the field of gynaecological endocrinology and ART FOR OVER 25 YEARS and have been managing fibroids with and without infertility fot umpteen years

  • How to cite:  Kaur K K.Review on Premature Ovarian Failure After Uterine Artery Embolization[Review of the article 'Premature Ovarian Failure After Uterine Artery Embolization ' by Chung S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002794
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse