Female sterilization reversal in the era of in-vitro fertilization.
Journal
Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology
ISSN: 1473-656X
Titre abrégé: Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9007264
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2022
01 08 2022
Historique:
entrez:
27
7
2022
pubmed:
28
7
2022
medline:
30
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Regret after female sterilization is not uncommon in the United States. Prior to the development of assisted reproductive technology (ART), surgical reversal of sterilization was the only option for patients interested in fertility. First performed in 1972, this procedure has since been refined over the years by gynaecologic surgeons. With in-vitro fertilization (IVF) gaining popularity, interest in sterilization reversal has waned. However, sterilization reversal should remain an important option in patients seeking pregnancy after tubal ligation. A direct comparison between IVF and sterilization reversal is challenging due to inherent differences in reporting fertility outcomes. However, sterilization reversal may optimize fertility in younger women, whereas IVF may be more effective in older women. The surgical approach to sterilization reversal can be laparotomic, laparoscopic or robotic. Clinical decision making should include consideration of the risk of ectopic pregnancy, interval from sterilization to reversal, type of sterilization procedure, planned anastomotic site and projected remaining tubal length. In the era of IVF, sterilization reversal still has a place in the management in restoring fertility. Creating awareness of the role of sterilization reversal is the first step in improving access to adequate training in this procedure for the next generation of reproductive surgeons.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35895967
doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000802
pii: 00001703-202208000-00014
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
244-249Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Daniels K, Daugherty, Abma JC. Current contraceptive status among women aged 15–49: United States, 2015–2017 [Internet]. NCHS data brief. 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db327_tables-508.pdf#3 . [Accessed 24 March 2022]
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). Contraceptive Use by Method 2019: Data Booklet (ST/ESA/SER.A/435).
Madison A, Alamri L, Schwartz A, et al. Conventional laparoscopy is the better option for tubal sterilization reversal: a closer look at tubal reanastomosis. Womens Heal Rep 2021; 2:375–380.
Hillis SD, Marcheanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93:889–895.
Van Voorhis BJ. Comparison of tubal ligation reversal procedures. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 43:641–649.
Garcia C. Oviductal anastomosis procedures. Hum Steriliz 1972; p 116.
Williams FJG. Fallopian tube surgery for reversal of sterilization. Br Med J 1973; 1:599–601.
Diamond E. Microsurgical reconstruction of the uterine tube in sterilized patients. Fertil Steril 1977; 28:1203–1210.
Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Nos C, et al. Surgery: sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:1145–1151.
Sedbon E, Delajolinieres JB, Boudouris O, Madelenat P. Tubal desterilization through exclusive laparoscopy. Hum Reprod 1989; 4:158–159.
Paul PG, Khurd AS, Garg R, Radhika KT. Laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis using barbed sutures. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24:11.
Tan HH, Loh SF. Microsurgical reversal of sterilisation: is this still clinically relevant today? Ann Acad Med Singapore 2010; 39:22–26.
Schepens JJBFG, Mol BWJ, Wiegerinck MAHM, et al. Pregnancy outcomes and prognostic factors from tubal sterilization reversal by sutureless laparoscopical re-anastomosis: a retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:354–359.
Wiegerinck MAHM, Roukema M, van Kessel PH, Mol BWJ. Sutureless re-anastomosis by laparoscopy versus microsurgical re-anastomosis by laparotomy for sterilization reversal: a matched cohort study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20:2355–2358.
Dubuisson JB, Swolin K. Surgery: brief communication: laparoscopic tubal anastomosis (the one stitch technique): preliminary results. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:2044–2046.
Falcone T, Goldberg J, Garcia-Ruiz A, et al. Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: a case report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 1999; 9:107–113.
Practice T, Medicine R. Role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril [Internet] 2021; 115:1143–1150.
van Seeters JAH, Chua SJ, Mol BWJ, Koks CAM. Tubal anastomosis after previous sterilization: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2017; 23:358–370.
Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod 2007; 22:2660–2664.
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.e4.
Schippert C, Bassler C, Soergel P, et al. Reconstructive, organ-preserving microsurgery in tubal infertility: still an alternative to in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2010; 93:1359–1361.
Chua KH, Chan JKY, Liu S, et al. Laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis or in vitro fertilisation in previously ligated patients: a comparison of fertility outcomes and survey of patient attitudes. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2020; 49:180–185.
Schippert C, Soergel P, Staboulidou I, et al. The risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reconstructive microsurgery and assisted reproductive technology procedures. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 285:863–871.
Cha SH, Lee MH, Kim JH, et al. Fertility outcome after tubal anastomosis by laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2001; 8:348–352.
Hawkins J, Dube D, Kaplow M, Tulandi T. Cost analysis of tubal anastomosis by laparoscopy and by laparotomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2002; 9:120–124.
Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109:1375–1380.
Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 2008; 90:1175–1179.
Goldberg JM, Falcone T. Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with and without robotic assistance. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:145–147.
Elci G, Elci E, Sayan S, Hanligil E. Is there any difference between pregnancy results after tubal reanastamosis performed laparotomically, laparoscopically, and robotically? Asian J Endosc Surg 2022; 15:261–269.
Guan Z, Liu J, Blazek K, Guan X. Robotic single-site tubal reanastomosis: the robotic factor. J Minim Invasive Gynecol [Internet] 2019; 26:607.
Liu J, Bardawil E, Lin Q, et al. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery tubal reanastomosis: a novel route for tubal surgery. Fertil Steril [Internet] 2018; 110:182.
Kim SH, Moon SY, Shin CJ, et al. Microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization: a report on 1,118 cases. Fertil Steril 1997; 68:865–870.
Yoon TK, Sung HR, Kang HG, et al. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril 1999; 72:1121–1126.
Hanafi MM. Factors affecting the pregnancy rate after microsurgical reversal of tubal ligation. Fertil Steril 2003; 80:434–440.
Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril 2009; 92:1198–1202.
Berger GS, Thorp JM, Weaver MA. Effectiveness of bilateral tubotubal anastomosis in a large outpatient population. Hum Reprod 2016; 31:1120–1125.
Reich H, McGlynn F, Parente C, et al. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis. Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1993; 1:16–19.
Trimbos-Kemper TCM. Reversal of sterilization in women over 40 years of age: a multicenter survey in the Netherlands. Fertil Steril 1990; 53:575–577.
Hirth R, Zbella E, Sanchez M, Prieto J. Microtubal reanastomosis: success rates as compared to in vitro fertilization. J Reprod Med Obstet Gynecol 2010; 55:161–165.
Sreshthaputra O, Sreshthaputra RA, Vutyavanich T. Factors affecting pregnancy rates after microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization. J Reconstr Microsurg 2013; 29:189–194.