Effectiveness of laparoscopic tubal anastomosis in tubal occlusion patients after laparoscopic salpingostomy for tubal pregnancy.
correlated factors
pregnancy outcome
tubal anastomosis
tubal occlusion
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
revised:
29
01
2021
received:
17
11
2020
accepted:
03
02
2021
pubmed:
5
2
2021
medline:
12
1
2022
entrez:
4
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic tubal anastomosis for tubal occlusions associated with infertility in patients with previous laparoscopic salpingostomy for ectopic pregnancy. This study is a retrospective analysis of the pregnancy outcomes of 173 infertile patients who underwent hysteroscopy and laparoscopic tubal anastomosis treatment between January 2013 and August 2018 in the Department of Reproductive Endocrinology in West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University. All patients had a history of laparoscopic salpingostomy for tubal pregnancy. The primary outcomes were intrauterine pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and delivery rates. We further studied the associated factors that could influence the change in pregnancy status. The 24-month cumulative clinical pregnancy rate of all patients was 107/173 (61.8%). The distribution of outcomes for the entire group of pregnancies was as follows: intrauterine pregnancy rate, 76/173 (43.9%); ectopic pregnancy rate, 31/173 (17.9%); delivery rate, 68/173 (39.3%); and miscarriage rate, 8/173 (4.6%). Age, type of anastomosis, hydrosalpinx, and endometrial polyps were significant prognostic factors in the multivariate model. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis is an effective treatment for tubal-associated infertility due to previous laparoscopic salpingostomy for ectopic pregnancy, especially for women under 35 years of age.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
292-297Informations de copyright
© 2021 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
Tvarijonaviciene E, Nadisauskiene RJ, Jariene K, Kruminis V. The diagnostic properties of medical history in the diagnosis of tubal pathology among subfertile patients. ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2012;2012:436930.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:e37-e43.
Estes SJ, Bhagavath B, Lindheim SR. Tubal anastomosis: once in a blue moon? Fertil Steril. 2018;110:64-65.
Chua SJ, Akande VA, Mol BW. Surgery for tubal infertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1:CD006415.
van Seeters JAH, Chua SJ, Mol BWJ, Koks CAM. Tubal anastomosis after previous sterilization: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:358-370.
Berger GS, Thorp JM Jr, Weaver MA. Effectiveness of bilateral tubotubal anastomosis in a large outpatient population. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:1120-1125.
Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2660-2664.
Audebert A, Pouly JL, Bonifacie B, Yazbeck C. Laparoscopic surgery for distal tubal occlusions: lessons learned from a historical series of 434 cases. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1203-1208.
Feng Y, Zhao H, Xu H, et al. Analysis of pregnancy outcome after anastomosis of oviduct and its influencing factors. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:393.
Sreshthaputra O, Sreshthaputra RA, Vutyavanich T. Factors affecting pregnancy rates after microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2013;29:189-194.
Schepens JJ, Mol BW, Wiegerinck MA, Houterman S, Koks CA. Pregnancy outcomes and prognostic factors from tubal sterilization reversal by sutureless laparoscopical re-anastomosis: a retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:354-359.
Pereira N, Amrane S, Estes JL, et al. Does the time interval between hysteroscopic polypectomy and start of in vitro fertilization affect outcomes? Fertil Steril. 2016;105:539-544.e1.
Zhang H, He X, Tian W, Song X, Zhang H. Hysteroscopic resection of endometrial polyps and assisted reproductive technology pregnancy outcomes compared with no treatment: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26:618-627.
Munro MG. Uterine polyps, adenomyosis, leiomyomas, and endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:629-640.
Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with Society of Reproductive Surgeons. Salpingectomy for hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S66-S68.
Johnson N, van Voorst S, Sowter MC, Strandell A, Mol BW. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;2010:CD002125.
Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:656-663.
Messinger LB, Alford CE, Csokmay JM, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of in vitro fertilization and tubal anastomosis for women after tubal ligation. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:32-38.
Schlaff WD. Restoring fertility after tubal ligation in women 40 years of age and older: how do we counsel our patients? Fertil Steril. 2020;113:733-734.
Peregrine J, McGovern PG, Brady PC, Ginsburg ES, Schlaff W. Restoring fertility in women aged 40 years and older after tubal ligation: tubal anastomosis versus in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:735-742.
Liu J, Bardawil E, Lin Q, et al. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery tubal reanastomosis: a novel route for tubal surgery. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:182.