Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 283, Issue 5, pp 1149–1158 | Cite as

Tubal anastomosis after tubal sterilization: a review

  • Xavier Deffieux
  • Michèle Morin Surroca
  • Erika Faivre
  • Frédérique Pages
  • Hervé Fernandez
  • Amélie Gervaise
Reproductive Medicine



To evaluate various techniques for restoring tubal patency after sterilisation.


A search strategy was designed, and for each subject either thesaurus terms (MeSH descriptors) or terms from the title or summary were used.


Mean length of hospital stay following laparoscopy seems to be shorter in comparison with laparotomy (3.3 vs. 6.1 days, P < 0.05). Rate of conversion to laparotomy is 5%. Pregnancy rates observed are between 54 and 88% for laparotomy and 31–85% for laparoscopy. Mean time to conception was between 2 and 9.6 months. Most pregnancies occurred in the 2 years following restoration of tubal patency (cumulative conception rate 80% at 12 months). Young age (<35 years), type of ligature (rings), how recently the ligature was done (<8 years), the anastomosis site (in the middle of the tube) and a good length of remaining tube (>7 cm) are the factors that govern whether there can be good restoration of tubal patency. Ectopic pregnancy rates observed are between 1.7 and 12% for laparotomy and 0–7% for laparoscopy. There are no randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing tubal anastomosis and in vitro fertilization.


There are few good-quality controlled studies in this area. Results of restoration of tubal patency seem to be comparable, regardless of the route of approach (laparotomy or laparoscopy).


Tubotubal anastomosis Tuboplasty Salpingostomy Salpingolysis Tubal implantation into uterus Microsurgical tuboplasty Tubal anastomosis Systematic review 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Wilcox L, Chu S, Eaker E, Zeger S, Peterson H (1991) Risk factors for regret after tubal sterilization: 5 years of follow-up in a prospective study. Fertil Steril 55:927–999PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dubuisson JB, Chapron C (1998) Single suture laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 10:307–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chi I, Jones D (1994) Incidence, risk factors, and prevention of poststerilization regret in women: an updated international review from an epidemiological perspective. Obstet Gynecol Surv 49:722–732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kjer J (1990) Regret of laparoscopic sterilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 35:205–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson R (1977) Why 103 women asked for reversal of sterilisation. Br Med J 2:305–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leader A, Galan N, George R, Taylor P (1983) A comparison of definable traits in women requesting reversal of sterilization and women satisfied with sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 145:198–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rock JA, Bergquist CA, Kimball AW Jr, Zacur HA, King TM (1984) Comparison of the operating microscope and loupe for microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 41:229–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tulandi T (1991) Effects of fibrin sealant on tubal anastomosis and adhesion formation. Fertil Steril 56:136–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahmad G, Watson A, Vandekerckhove P, Lilford R (2006) Techniques for pelvic surgery in subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Issue 2. Art. no. CD000221Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yovich J, Chau E (1998) Intrauterine pregnancies following laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis. Med J Aust 168:524–525PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rouzi AA, Mackinnon M, McComb PF (1995) Predictors of success of reversal of sterilization. Fertil Steril 64:29–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rock JA, Guzick DS, Katz E, Zacur HA, King TM (1987) Tubal anastomosis: pregnancy success following reversal of Falope ring or monopolar cautery sterilization. Fertil Steril 48:13–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ribeiro SC, Tormena RA, Giribela CG, Izzo CR, Santos NC, Pinotti JA (2004) Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 84:142–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cha SH, Lee MH, Kim JH, Lee CN, Yoon TK, Cha KY (2001) Fertility outcome after tubal anastomosis by laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 8:348–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T (2007) Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 109:1375–1380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoon TK, Sung HR, Kang HG, Cha SH, Lee CN, Cha KY (1999) Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril 72:1121–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xue P, Fa YY (1989) Microsurgical reversal of female sterilization. Long-term follow-up of 117 cases. J Reprod Med 34:451–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim SH, Shin CJ, Kim JG, Moon SY, Lee JY, Chang YS (1997) Microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization: a report on 1, 118 cases. Fertil Steril 68:865–870PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wiegerinck MA, Roukema M, van Kessel PH, Mol BW (2005) Sutureless re-anastomosis by laparoscopy versus microsurgical re-anastomosis by laparotomy for sterilization reversal: a matched cohort study. Hum Reprod 20:2355–2358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA (2008) Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 90:1175–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boeckx W, Gordts S, Buysse K, Brosens I (1986) Reversibility after female sterilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 93:839–842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    te Velde ER, Boer ME, Looman CW, Habbema JD (1990) Factors influencing success or failure after reversal of sterilization: a multivariate approach. Fertil Steril 54:270–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dubuisson JB, Swolin K (1995) Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis (the one stitch technique): preliminary results. Hum Reprod 10:2044–2046PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glock JL, Kim AH, Hulka JF, Hunt RB, Trad FS, Brumsted JR (1996) Reproductive outcome after tubal reversal in women 40 years of age or older. Fertil Steril 65:863–865PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim J, Kim K, Doo J, Rhyeu C (1997) A report on 387 cases of microsurgical tubal reversals. Fertil Steril 68:875–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Slowey MJ, Coddington CC (1998) Microsurgical tubal anastomoses performed as an outpatient procedure by minilaparotomy are less expensive and as safe as those performed as an inpatient procedure. Fertil Steril 69:492–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hanafi MM (2003) Factors affecting the pregnancy rate after microsurgical reversal of tubal ligation. Fertil Steril 80:434–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Trimbos-Kemper TC (1990) Reversal of sterilization in women over 40 years of age: a multicenter survey in The Netherlands. Fertil Steril 53:575–577PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barjot PJ, Marie G, Von Theobald P (1999) Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and reversal of sterilization. Hum Reprod 14:1222–1225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bissonnette F, Lapensee L, Bouzayen R (1999) Outpatient laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and subsequent fertility. Fertil Steril 72:549–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Lehmann-Willenbrock E, Schmutzler A (2001) Pelviscopic reversal of tubal sterilization with the one- to two-stitch technique. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 8:353–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coste J, Bouyer J, Ughetto S et al (2004) Ectopic pregnancy is again on the increase. Recent trends in the incidence of ectopic pregnancies in France (1992–2002). Hum Reprod 19:2014–2018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stadtmauer L, Sauer MV (1997) Reversal of tubal sterilization using laparoscopically placed titanium staples: preliminary experience. Hum Reprod 12:647–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gauwerky JF, Klose RP, Forssmann WG (1993) Fibrin glue for anastomosis of the fallopian tube—morphology. Hum Reprod 8:2108–2114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goldberg JM, Falcone T (2003) Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with and without robotic assistance. Hum Reprod 18:145–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadiere GB (2000) Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril 74:1020–1023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vlahos NF, Bankowski BJ, King JA, Shiller DA (2007) Laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis using robotics: experience from a teaching institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 17:180–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Calvert JP (1995) Reversal of female sterilisation. Br J Hosp Med 53:267–270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ramlau-Hansen CH, Thulstrup AM, Nohr EA, Bonde JP, Sorensen TI, Olsen J (2007) Subfecundity in overweight and obese couples. Hum Reprod 22:1634–1637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thurmond AS, Brandt KR, Gorrill MJ (1999) Tubal obstruction after ligation reversal surgery: results of catheter recanalization. Radiology 210:747–750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sitko D, Commenges-Ducos M, Roland P, Papaxanthos-Roche A, Horovitz J, Dallay D (2001) IVF following impossible or failed surgical reversal of tubal sterilization. Hum Reprod 16:683–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yossry M, Aboulghar M, D’Angelo A, Gillett W (2006) In vitro fertilisation versus tubal reanastomosis (sterilisation reversal) for subfertility after tubal sterilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:4144Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Deffieux
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michèle Morin Surroca
    • 3
  • Erika Faivre
    • 2
  • Frédérique Pages
    • 3
  • Hervé Fernandez
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  • Amélie Gervaise
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculté de MédecineUniversité Paris-SudParisFrance
  2. 2.AP-HP, Service De Gynécologie-Obstétrique et Médecine de la Reproduction, Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine DepartmentHôpital Antoine BéclèreClamartFrance
  3. 3.Service évaluation des actes professionnels, Professional Procedures Evaluation DepartmentHaute Autorité de la SantéParisFrance
  4. 4.AP-HP, Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, CHU BicêtreHôpital Antoine BéclèreParisFrance
  5. 5.Inserm U822Le Kremlin BicêtreFrance

Personalised recommendations