The effect of bipolar electrocoagulation during ovarian cystectomy on ovarian reserve: a systematic review

Vasilios Pergialiotis, Anastasia Prodromidou, Maximos Frountzas, Konstantinos Bitos, Despina Perrea, Stergios K. Doumouchtsis
In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2015 · vol. 213(5) , pp. 620–628 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.006 · PMID:25882917 · W2166868920
review OA: bronze CC0 ⤵ 16 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-12 ⓘ

This systematic review evaluated how bipolar electrocoagulation during ovarian cystectomy impacts ovarian reserve.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

The aim of the present systematic review was to study the effect of bipolar electrocoagulation during ovarian cystectomy on ovarian reserve. We searched Medline (1966-2015), Scopus (2004-2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (2008-2015), and Cochrane Central Register (CENTRAL) databases along with reference lists of electronically retrieved studies. The levels of antimullerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following the excision of the benign ovarian cyst were defined as primary outcomes. Eight studies were finally included in our systematic review, which recruited 545 women. A metaanalysis was precluded because of significant heterogeneity in the methodological characteristics of the included studies. Data from the included studies suggest that the use of bipolar coagulation compared with ovarian sutures seems to result in significantly lower AMH and AFC during the first 3 months following the excision of the ovarian cyst. Two studies reported that this effect seems to persist at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Bipolar electrodiathermy seems to be accompanied by increased damage to ovarian reserve, which is indicated by the lower levels of AMH and AFC. However, definitive results are precluded because of the significant heterogeneity of included studies and the potential bias.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (25)

Cited by (16)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK