Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tubal Disease and Ectopic Pregnancy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Reproductive Medicine and Surgery

  • 1950 Accesses

Abstract

Damaged fallopian tubes are a common cause of female infertility and often result from prior pelvic infection, ectopic pregnancy, or endometriosis. When evaluating tubal health and patency, the hysterosalpingogram should be the first-line imaging study; it is cost-effective, simple to perform, and carries the benefit of improved subsequent fecundity. Options for surgical management of tubal damage are reviewed as well as situations, such as severe tubal disease, in which in vitro fertilization is indicated as an alternative. Ectopic pregnancy is of particular importance when considering tubal disease, as these abnormal pregnancies can represent both a cause and a consequence of tubal damage. Ectopic pregnancy carries substantial maternal risk and, as such, early diagnosis and management are essential. Protocols for management and follow-up are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 209.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cates W, Farley TM, Rowe PJ. Worldwide patterns of infertility: is Africa different? Lancet. 1985;2(8455):596–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hull MG, Glazener CM, Kelly NJ, Conway DI, Foster PA, Hinton RA, et al. Population study of causes, treatment, and outcome of infertility. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985;291(6510):1693–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhattacharya S, Porter M, Amalraj E, Templeton A, Hamilton M, Lee AJ, et al. The epidemiology of infertility in the North East of Scotland. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(12):3096–107.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/trends.htm

  5. Westrom L, Joesoef R, Reynolds G, Hagdu A, Thompson SE. Pelvic inflammatory disease and fertility. A cohort study of 1,844 women with laparoscopically verified disease and 657 control women with normal laparoscopic results. Sex Transm Dis. 1992;19(4):185–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Brunham RC, Maclean IW, Binns B, Peeling RW. Chlamydia trachomatis: its role in tubal infertility. J Infect Dis. 1985;152(6): 1275–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wiesenfeld HC, Hillier SL, Meyn LA, Amortegui AJ, Sweet RL. Subclinical pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(1):37–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Westrom L. Effect of pelvic inflammatory disease on fertility. Venereology. 1995;8(4):219–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Trent M, Bass D, Ness RB, Haggerty C. Recurrent PID, subsequent STI, and reproductive health outcomes: findings from the PID evaluation and clinical health (PEACH) study. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38(9):879–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sellors JW, Mahony JB, Chernesky MA, Rath DJ. Tubal factor infertility: an association with prior chlamydial infection and asymptomatic salpingitis. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(3):451–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hillis SD, Owens LM, Marchbanks PA, Amsterdam LF, Mac Kenzie WR. Recurrent chlamydial infections increase the risks of hospitalization for ectopic pregnancy and pelvic inflammatory disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176(1 Pt 1):103–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Soules MR, Mack LA. Imaging of the reproductive tract in infertile women: hysterosalpingography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging. In: Keye WR, Chang RJ, Rebar RW, Soules MR, editors. Infertility evaluation and treatment. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1995. p. 300–29.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ubeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, Abuin RA. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):131–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Preutthipan S, Linasmita V. A prospective comparative study between hysterosalpingography and hysteroscopy in the detection of intrauterine pathology in patients with infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2003;29(1):33–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Evers JL, Land JA, Mol BW. Evidence-based medicine for diagnostic questions. Semin Reprod Med. 2003;21(1):9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mol BW, Collins JA, Burrows EA, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in predicting fertility outcome. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(5):1237–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dessole S, Meloni GB, Capobianco G, Manzoni MA, Ambrosini G, Canalis GC. A second hysterosalpingography reduces the use of selective technique for treatment of a proximal tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(5):1037–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lorino CO, Prough SG, Aksel S, Abuzeid M, Alexander SE, Wiebe RH. Pain relief in hysterosalpingography. A comparison of analgesics. J Reprod Med. 1990;35(5):533–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Peters AA, Witte EH, Damen AC, Holm JP, Drogendijk AC, vd Velde EA, et al. Pain relief during and following outpatient curettage and hysterosalpingography: a double blind study to compare the efficacy and safety of tramadol versus naproxen. Cobra Research Group. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;66(1):51–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Owens OM, Schiff I, Kaul AF, Cramer DC, Burt RA. Reduction of pain following hysterosalpingogram by prior analgesic administration. Fertil Steril. 1985;43(1):146–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Luttjeboer F, Harada T, Hughes E, Johnson N, Lilford R, Mol BW. Tubal flushing for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3:CD003718.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hurd WW, Wyckoff ET, Reynolds DB, Amesse LS, Gruber JS, Horowitz GM. Patient rotation and resolution of unilateral cornual obstruction during hysterosalpingography. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(6):1275–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Honore GM, Holden AE, Schenken RS. Pathophysiology and management of proximal tubal blockage. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(5):785–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pinto AB, Hovsepian DM, Wattanakumtornkul S, Pilgram TK. Pregnancy outcomes after fallopian tube recanalization: oil-based versus water-soluble contrast agents. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14(1):69–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Thurmond AS. Selective salpingography and fallopian tube recanalization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156(1):33–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Peterson HB. Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):189–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(6):889–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Yoon TK, Sung HR, Kang HG, Cha SH, Lee CN, Cha KY. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(6):1121–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod. 2007;22(10):2660–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim JD, Kim KS, Doo JK, Rhyeu CH. A report on 387 cases of microsurgical tubal reversals. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(5):875–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cha SH, Lee MH, Kim JH, Lee CN, Yoon TK, Cha KY. Fertility outcome after tubal anastomosis by laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2001;8(3):348–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1198–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Trimbos-Kemper TC. Reversal of sterilization in women over 40 years of age: a multicenter survey in The Netherlands. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(3):575–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Petrucco OM, Silber SJ, Chamberlain SL, Warnes GM, Davies M. Live birth following day surgery reversal of female sterilisation in women older than 40 years: a realistic option in Australia? Med J Aust. 2007;187(5):271–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Nos C, Morice P, Aubriot FX, Garnier P. Sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(5): 1145–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(4):1175–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(6):1375–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(6): 944–55.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nackley AC, Muasher SJ. The significance of hydrosalpinx in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(3):373–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Zeyneloglu HB, Arici A, Olive DL. Adverse effects of hydrosalpinx on pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(3):492–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bedaiwy MA, Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Attaran M, Sharma R, Miller K, et al. Relationship between cytokines and the embryotoxicity of hydrosalpingeal fluid. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005;22(4): 161–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Andersen AN, Yue Z, Meng FJ, Petersen K. Low implantation rate after in-vitro fertilization in patients with hydrosalpinges diagnosed by ultrasonography. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(10):1935–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Strandell A, Lindhard A. Why does hydrosalpinx reduce fertility? The importance of hydrosalpinx fluid. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(5): 1141–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Camus E, Poncelet C, Goffinet F, Wainer B, Merlet F, Nisand I, et al. Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(5):1243–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenstrom U, Thorburn J, Janson PO, Hamberger L. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: a prospective, randomized multicentre trial in Scandinavia on salpingectomy prior to IVF. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(11):2762–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Dechaud H, Daures JP, Arnal F, Humeau C, Hedon B. Does previous salpingectomy improve implantation and pregnancy rates in patients with severe tubal factor infertility who are undergoing in vitro fertilization? A pilot prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(6):1020–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kontoravdis A, Makrakis E, Pantos K, Botsis D, Deligeoroglou E, Creatsas G. Proximal tubal occlusion and salpingectomy result in similar improvement in in vitro fertilization outcome in patients with hydrosalpinx. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(6):1642–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shelton KE, Butler L, Toner JP, Oehninger S, Muasher SJ. Salpingectomy improves the pregnancy rate in in-vitro fertilization patients with hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(3):523–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. de Wit W, Gowrising CJ, Kuik DJ, Lens JW, Schats R. Only hydrosalpinges visible on ultrasound are associated with reduced implantation and pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(6):1696–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Johnson N, van Voorst S, Sowter MC, Strandell A, Mol BW. Tubal surgery before IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(1):3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Laparoscopic management of hydrosalpinges before in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: salpingectomy versus proximal tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(3):612–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Mijatovic V, Veersema S, Emanuel MH, Schats R, Hompes PG. Essure hysteroscopic tubal occlusion device for the treatment of hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in patients with a contraindication for laparoscopy. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1338–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Darwish AM, El Saman AM. Is there a role for hysteroscopic tubal occlusion of functionless hydrosalpinges prior to IVF/ICSI in modern practice? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(12):1484–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Barnhart KT. Clinical practice. Ectopic pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(4):379–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Bouyer J, Coste J, Fernandez H, Pouly JL, Job-Spira N. Sites of ectopic pregnancy: a 10 year population-based study of 1800 cases. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3224–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Van Den Eeden SK, Shan J, Bruce C, Glasser M. Ectopic pregnancy rate and treatment utilization in a large managed care organization. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(5 Pt 1):1052–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Ectopic pregnancy—United States, 1990–1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1995;44(3):46–8.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Della-Giustina D, Denny M. Ectopic pregnancy. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2003;21(3):565–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Coste J, Fernandez H, Joye N, Benifla J, Girard S, Marpeau L, et al. Role of chromosome abnormalities in ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(6):1259–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Goddijn M, van der Veen F, Schuring-Blom GH, Ankum WM, Leschot NJ. Cytogenetic characteristics of ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(12):2769–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Maymon R, Shulman A. Controversies and problems in the current management of tubal pregnancy. Hum Reprod Update. 1996;2(6):541–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. DeVoe RW, Pratt JH. Simultaneous intrauterine and extrauterine pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1948;56(6):1119–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Goldman GA, Fisch B, Ovadia J, Tadir Y. Heterotopic pregnancy after assisted reproductive technologies. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1992;47(4):217–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Yao M, Tulandi T. Current status of surgical and nonsurgical management of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(3):421–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Alsuleiman SA, Grimes EM. Ectopic pregnancy: a review of 147 cases. J Reprod Med. 1982;27(2):101–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Saxon D, Falcone T, Mascha EJ, Marino T, Yao M, Tulandi T. A study of ruptured tubal ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(1):46–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Tulandi T, Hemmings R, Khalifa F. Rupture of ectopic pregnancy in women with low and declining serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin concentrations. Fertil Steril. 1991;56(4):786–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 94: medical management of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(6):1479–85.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Goldstein SR, Snyder JR, Watson C, Danon M. Very early pregnancy detection with endovaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72(2):200–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Barnhart KT, Sammel MD, Rinaudo PF, Zhou L, Hummel AC, Guo W. Symptomatic patients with an early viable intrauterine pregnancy: hCG curves redefined. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(1): 50–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Buckley RG, King KJ, Disney JD, Riffenburgh RH, Gorman JD, Klausen JH. Serum progesterone testing to predict ectopic pregnancy in symptomatic first-trimester patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2000;36(2):95–100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin. Medical management of tubal pregnancy. Number 3, December 1998. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999;65(1):97–103.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Menon S, Colins J, Barnhart KT. Establishing a human chorionic gonadotropin cutoff to guide methotrexate treatment of ectopic pregnancy: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):481–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Barnhart KT, Gosman G, Ashby R, Sammel M. The medical management of ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis comparing “single dose” and “multidose” regimens. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(4): 778–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Hajenius PJ, Mol F, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM, Ankum WM, van der Veen F. Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;1(1):CD000324.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Korhonen J, Stenman UH, Ylostalo P. Serum human chorionic gonadotropin dynamics during spontaneous resolution of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1994;61(4):632–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Medical management of tubal pregnancy. ACOG Practice Bulletin 3. Washington, DC: ACOG; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Gracia CR, Barnhart KT. Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy: a decision analysis comparing six strategies. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(3): 464–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Rebecca Flyckt MD

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Jeffrey M. Goldberg MD

Authors
  1. Rebecca Flyckt MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey M. Goldberg MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey M. Goldberg MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cleveland Clinic, Ob/Gyn & Women's Health Institute, Euclid Ave 9500, Cleveland, 44195, Ohio, USA

    Tommaso Falcone

  2. Duke University Medical Center, Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erwin Rd 2301, Durham, 27705, North Carolina, USA

    William W. Hurd

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Flyckt, R., Goldberg, J.M. (2013). Tubal Disease and Ectopic Pregnancy. In: Falcone, T., Hurd, W. (eds) Clinical Reproductive Medicine and Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6837-0_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6837-0_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6836-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6837-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation