Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Infertility: HELP
Articles by Pierre Panel
Based on 4 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, P. Panel wrote the following 4 articles about Infertility.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline [Management of endometriosis: CNGOF-HAS practice guidelines (short version)]. 2018

Collinet, P / Fritel, X / Revel-Delhom, C / Ballester, M / Bolze, P A / Borghese, B / Bornsztein, N / Boujenah, J / Bourdel, N / Brillac, T / Chabbert-Buffet, N / Chauffour, C / Clary, N / Cohen, J / Decanter, C / Denouël, A / Dubernard, G / Fauconnier, A / Fernandez, H / Gauthier, T / Golfier, F / Huchon, C / Legendre, G / Loriau, J / Mathieu-d'Argent, E / Merlot, B / Niro, J / Panel, P / Paparel, P / Philip, C A / Ploteau, S / Poncelet, C / Rabischong, B / Roman, H / Rubod, C / Santulli, P / Sauvan, M / Thomassin-Naggara, I / Torre, A / Wattier, J M / Yazbeck, C / Canis, M. ·Clinique de gynécologie, hôpital Jeanne-de-Flandre, CHRU de Lille, 59000 Lille, France; Université Lille-Nord-de-France, 59000 Lille, France. Electronic address: pierre.collinet@chru-lille.fr. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, Inserm CIC 1402, 2, rue de la Milétrie, 86000 Poitiers, France; Université de Poitiers, 86000 Poitiers, France; Inserm CIC 1402, 86000 Poitiers, France. · Haute Autorité de santé, 5, avenue du Stade-de-France, 93218 La Plaine-Saint-Denis cedex, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, CHU Tenon, AP-HP, 4, rue de la Chine, 75020 Paris, France. · Service de chirurgie gynécologique oncologique, obstétrique, CHU Lyon-Sud, 165, chemin du Grand-Revoyet, 69495 Pierre-Bénite, France; Université Claude-Bernard-Lyon 1, 69000 Lyon, France. · Service de chirurgie gynécologie-obstétrique 2 et médecine de la reproduction, CHU Cochin, AP-HP, 27, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Jacques, 75014 Paris, France; Équipe génomique, épigénétique et physiopathologie de la reproduction, département développement, reproduction, cancer, Inserm U1016, université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 12, rue de l'École-de-Médecine, 75270 Paris cedex 06, France. · 29, rue de l'Essonne, 91000 Evry, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, CHU Bondy, avenue du 14-Juillet, 93140 Bondy, France; Centre médical du Château, 22, rue Louis-Besquel, 94300 Vincennes, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et reproduction humaine, CHU Estaing, 1, place Lucie-Aubrac, 63003 Clermont-Ferrand, France; Faculté de médecine, Encov-ISIT, UMR6284 CNRS, université d'Auvergne, 28, place Henri-Dunant, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France. · 98, route de Blagnac, 31200 Toulouse, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, CHU Tenon, AP-HP, 4, rue de la Chine, 75020 Paris, France; GRC-6 centre expert en endométriose (C3E), Sorbonne université, Paris, France; UMR-S938 Inserm Sorbonne université, Paris, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et reproduction humaine, CHU Estaing, 1, place Lucie-Aubrac, 63003 Clermont-Ferrand, France. · 3, rue Pablo-Picasso, 92160 Antony, France. · Service d'assistance médicale à la procréation et de préservation de la fertilité, hôpital Jeanne-de-Flandre, CHRU de Lille, 1, rue Eugène-Avinée, 59037 Lille cedex, France; EA 4308 gamétogenèse et qualité du gamète, CHRU de Lille, 59037 Lille cedex, France. · EndoFrance, BP 50053, 01124 Montluel cedex, France. · Université Claude-Bernard-Lyon 1, 69000 Lyon, France; Clinique gynécologique et obstétricale, hôpital de la Croix-Rousse, groupe hospitalier Nord, CHU de Lyon-HCL, 103, grande rue de la Croix-Rousse, 69317 Lyon cedex, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, CHI Poissy-St-Germain, 10, rue du Champ-Gaillard, 78303 Poissy, France; EA 7285 risques cliniques et sécurité en santé des femmes, université Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, CHU Bicêtre, AP-HP, 78, avenue du Général-de-Gaulle, 94275 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; CESP-INSERM, U1018, équipe épidémiologie et évaluation des stratégies de prise en charge, VIH, reproduction, pédiatrie, université Paris-Sud, Paris, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital Mère-Enfant, CHU de Limoges, 8, avenue Dominique-Larrey, 87042 Limoges, France; UMR-1248, faculté de médecine, 87042 Limoges, France. · Service de chirurgie gynécologique oncologique, obstétrique, CHU Lyon-Sud, 165, chemin du Grand-Revoyet, 69495 Pierre-Bénite, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, CHI Poissy-St-Germain, 10, rue du Champ-Gaillard, 78303 Poissy, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, CHU d'Angers, 4, rue Larrey, 49033 Angers cedex 01, France; CESP-Inserm, U1018, équipe 7, genre, santé sexuelle et reproductive, université Paris-Sud, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre cedex, France. · Service de chirurgie digestive, groupe hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, 185, rue Raymond-Losserand, 75001 Paris, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, CHU Tenon, AP-HP, 4, rue de la Chine, 75020 Paris, France; Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie Paris 6, Paris, France; GRC6-UPMC, centre expert en endométriose (C3E), hôpital Tenon, Paris, France. · Service de chirurgie gynécologique, clinique Tivoli, 220, rue Mandron, 33000 Bordeaux, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, centre hospitalier de Versailles, 177, route de Versailles, 78157 Le Chesnay cedex, France. · Service d'urologie, CHU Lyon-Sud, 165, chemin du Grand-Revoyet, 60495 Pierre-Bénite, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, hôpital Mère-Enfant, CHU de Nantes, 8, boulevard Jean-Monnet, 44093 Nantes, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, centre hospitalier Renée-Dubos, 6, avenue de l'Île-de-France, 95300 Pontoise, France; Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, UFR SMBH, 93022 Bobigny, France. · Centre expert de diagnostic et prise en charge multidisciplinaire de l'endométriose, clinique gynécologique et obstétricale, CHU Charles-Nicolle, 1, rue de Germont, 76031 Rouen, France. · Clinique de gynécologie, hôpital Jeanne-de-Flandre, CHRU de Lille, 59000 Lille, France; Université Lille-Nord-de-France, 59000 Lille, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, CHU Bicêtre, AP-HP, 78, avenue du Général-de-Gaulle, 94275 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. · Service d'imagerie, hôpital Tenon, AP-HP, 4, rue de la Chine, 75020 Paris, France; Sorbonne universités, UPMC université Paris 06, Paris, France; Institut universitaire de cancérologie, Assistance publique, Paris, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, hôpital Arnaud-de-Villeneuve, CHU de Montpellier, 371, avenue du Doyen-Gaston-Giraud, 34295 Montpellier, France. · Centre d'étude et traitement de la douleur, hôpital Claude-Huriez, CHRU de Lille, rue Michel-Polonowski, 59000 Lille, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital Foch, AP-HP, 40, rue Worth, 92151 Suresnes, France; Centre d'assistance médicale à la procréation, clinique Pierre-Cherest, 5, rue Pierre-Cherest, 92200 Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France. ·Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol · Pubmed #29550339.

ABSTRACT: First-line investigations to diagnose endometriosis are clinical examination and pelvic ultrasound. Second-line investigations include pelvic examination performed by a referent clinician, transvaginal ultrasound performed by a referent echographist, and pelvic MRI. It is recommended to treat endometriosis when it is symptomatic. First-line hormonal treatments recommended for the management of painful endometriosis are combined with hormonal contraceptives or levonorgestrel 52mg IUD. There is no evidence to recommend systematic preoperative hormonal therapy for the unique purpose of preventing the risk of surgical complications or facilitating surgery. After endometriosis surgery, combined hormonal contraceptives or levonorgestrel SIU 52mg are recommended as first-line therapy in the absence of desire of pregnancy. In case of initial treatment failure, recurrence, or multiple organ involvement by endometriosis, medico-surgical and multidisciplinary discussion is recommended. The laparoscopic approach is recommended for the surgical treatment of endometriosis. HRT may be offered in postmenopausal women operated for endometriosis. In case of infertility related to endometriosis, it is not recommended to prescribe anti-gonadotropic hormone therapy to increase the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, including postoperatively. The possibilities of fertility preservation should be discussed with the patient in case of surgery for ovarian endometrioma.

2 Article Measuring health-related quality of life in women with endometriosis: comparing the clinimetric properties of the Endometriosis Health Profile-5 (EHP-5) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). 2017

Aubry, G / Panel, P / Thiollier, G / Huchon, C / Fauconnier, A. ·EA 7285 Research Unit 'Risk and Safety in Clinical Medicine for Women and Perinatal Health', Versailles-Saint-Quentin University (UVSQ), 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France. · Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Versailles, 78150 Le Chesnay, France. · Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy-Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 78300 Poissy, France. ·Hum Reprod · Pubmed #28383700.

ABSTRACT: STUDY QUESTION: Which of the Endometriosis Health Profile-5 (EHP-5) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) is the most efficient to assess quality of life in women suffering from endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although EHP-5 and EQ-5D instruments had an excellent responsiveness, EHP-5 has a better discriminative ability than EQ-5 to measure health-related quality of life (HrQoL). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Proper measurement of HrQoL is important in endometriosis. While many quality of life instruments are available, few have been completely validated in endometriosis. The EHP-5 and the EQ-5D are short and practical scales, which may be useful. Literature is lacking to determine which one is the most suitable in clinical practice or in clinical research. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective and observational study conducted between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013 included a total of 253 consecutive women with proven endometriosis, undergoing medical or surgical treatment, in 2 French tertiary care centers. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Women over 18 years consulting for painful symptoms of at least 3 months' duration or for infertility, with endometriosis proven histologically or radiologically, were requested to fill in the 2 scales before (T0) and 12 months after treatment (T1). Construct validity consisted in testing presupposed relationships between the scales and the characteristics of the patients or the endometriosis. Responsiveness to change was calculated for all patients and in each treatment group. Effect sizes were used according to Cohen's d method. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 216 women filled in completely all the questionnaires at T0 and 133 (61.6%) at T1. EHP-5 and EQ-5D had good discriminative abilities regarding the patients' symptoms, with significant superiority of EHP-5 concerning three of the nine hypotheses. The largest difference was that calculated for the 'intensity of dysmenorrhea' using the Visual Analogic Scale, with respectively effect size from Cohen's d (ES) = 0.86 95% CI (0.54-1.17) for EHP-5 versus 0.48 95% CI (0.16-0.79) for EQ-5D. There were no differences in EHP-5 or in EQ-5D scores between subgroups according to the characteristics of endometriosis. Overall responsiveness was excellent and equivalent for EHP-5 and for EQ-5D, with, respectively, ES = 0.81 95% CI (0.56-1.56) versus ES = 0.95 95% CI (0.68-1.20). In subgroup analyses, EHP-5 was responsive in case of medical treatment with ES = 0.93 95% CI (0.07-1.70), whereas EQ-5D was not, ES = 0.73 95% CI (-0.06-1.47). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our study population included patients with symptomatic and mainly severe forms of endometriosis, which may suggest a spectrum bias. The evaluation of responsiveness in case of medical treatment was based on a small number of patients, which limits the interpretation of the difference found between the two scales in this subgroup. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: EHP-5 is a simple, efficient and valid tool for evaluating quality of life in daily practice and also valuable to provide a primary outcome in clinical studies evaluating treatment efficacy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was funded by the Direction à la Recherche Clinique et à l'Innovation of Versailles, France. The authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTER NUMBER: None.

3 Article Fertility after ectopic pregnancy: the DEMETER randomized trial. 2013

Fernandez, Hervé / Capmas, Perrine / Lucot, Jean Philippe / Resch, Benoit / Panel, Pierre / Bouyer, Jean / Anonymous3930752. ·Epidemiology of Reproduction and Child Development Team, Inserm, CESP Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, F94276 Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France. ·Hum Reprod · Pubmed #23482340.

ABSTRACT: STUDY QUESTION: Does treatment for the resolution of ectopic pregnancy (EP) affect subsequent spontaneous fertility [occurrence of an intrauterine pregnancy (IUP)]? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is no significant difference in 2 years subsequent fertility neither between methotrexate and conservative surgery for less active EP nor between conservative and radical surgery for the most active EP. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: No randomized trial has compared radical and conservative surgery treatments. A recent review of the Cochrane database did not conclude about fertility due to insufficient data. Prospective studies from EP registries in two regions of France (Auvergne and Greater Lille) have suggested that fertility is similar after medical treatment and conservative surgery and lower after radical surgery. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This randomized controlled trial included all women with an ultrasound-confirmed EP. Women were divided into two arms according to the activity of the EP (defined by Fernandez's score). In arm 1 (less active ectopic pregnancies, i.e. Fernandez's score <13 and no haemodynamic failure), medical treatment was considered practicable, and women were randomly allocated to conservative surgery with a systematic post-operative i.m. methotrexate injection within 24 h or to an i.m. methotrexate injection alone. In arm 2 (active ectopic pregnancies), medical treatment was considered impracticable, and, thus, all women had to undergo surgery; they were randomly allocated to either a radical or conservative procedure, the latter including a post-operative methotrexate injection. Sample sizes (n = 210 in arm 1 and n = 230 in arm 2) were computed to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 20% difference in subsequent cumulative fertility rates between treatments in each arm. The total duration of the trial was 5 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: The trial took place in 17 centres in France from 2005 to 2009. Two hundred and seven women were included in arm 1 and 199 in arm 2. Cumulative fertility curves were drawn with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) were computed with the Cox model. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS: Arm 1: cumulative fertility curves were not significantly different between medical treatment and conservative surgery. HR was 0.85 (0.59-1.22) P = 0.37. The 2-year rates of IUP were 67% after medical treatment and 71% after conservative surgery. Arm 2: cumulative fertility curves were not significantly different between conservative and radical surgery. HR was 1.06 (0.69-1.63) P = 0.78. The 2-year rates of IUP were 70% after conservative surgery and 64% after radical surgery. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Inclusion in this trial was more difficult than expected, especially in arm 2 in which women were reluctant to radical surgery. In consequence, the sample size was slightly lower than planned. However, due to a lower proportion of lost to follow-up than expected (10% instead of 15%), the statistical power remained very close to 80%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: As it is a multicentre randomized trial, the results may be generalized with satisfactory confidence. The results of this trial invite gynaecologists to reconsider the management of EP and to modify balance between considerations of initial recovery and preservation of fertility. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00137982 on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

4 Article Do patients manage to achieve pregnancy after a major complication of deeply infiltrating endometriosis resection? 2011

Kondo, William / Daraï, Emile / Yazbeck, Chadi / Panel, Pierre / Tamburro, Stefano / Dubuisson, Jean / Jardon, Kris / Mage, Gérard / Madelenat, Patrick / Canis, Michel. ·CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Polyclinique de l'Hôtel Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand, France. williamkondo@yahoo.com ·Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol · Pubmed #20970915.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the fertility status in women suffering from major postoperative complications following deep endometriosis surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study in teaching and research hospitals (tertiary centers) including 23 women submitted to the surgical treatment for deep endometriosis and presenting a major postoperative complication. Postoperatively, women desiring pregnancy who conceived were compared to those who did not conceive using Mann-Whitney test and Fisher's exact test. Main outcome measure included the pregnancy rate among these women. RESULTS: The overall intrauterine pregnancy rate was 47.8% and the live birth rate was 30.4%. There were 10 spontaneous conceptions and 3 IVF conceptions among 11 patients. Women who did not conceive were older than those who conceived (33.9 vs. 29.3 years; p = 0.02). The pregnancy rate after intestinal complications was lower than after urinary complications (33.3% vs. 83.3%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Fertility remains preserved among women experiencing a major complication after removal of deep endometriosis with a live birth rate of 30.4%. Women experiencing bowel complications have a reduced probability of conception compared with those who experience a urologic complication.