Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

ART Outcomes After Hysteroscopic Proximal Tubal Occlusion Versus Laparoscopic Salpingectomy for Hydrosalpinx Management in Endometriosis Patients

  • Endometriosis: Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to compare assisted reproductive technology (ART) cumulative live birth rates after hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion and laparoscopic salpingectomy in endometriosis patients, for management of hydrosalpinx. This is an observational cohort study at a university hospital, including all endometriosis patients with hydrosalpinges undergoing ART, between January 2013 and December 2018. The patients underwent either laparoscopic salpingectomy or hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion with Essure® when laparoscopy was not an option (extensive pelvic adhesions at exploratory laparoscopy or a history of multiple abdominal surgeries with frozen pelvis). The diagnosis of endometriosis was based on published imaging criteria using transvaginal sonography (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Endometriosis patients with hydrosalpinges diagnosed by hysterosalpingography and/or TVUS and/or MRI were included. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate. A total of 104 patients were included in the study; 74 underwent laparoscopic salpingectomy and 30 underwent proximal tubal occlusion with Essure®. The Essure® group had longer infertility durations (58.9 ± 30.0 months vs. 39.5 ± 19.1 months, p = 0.002) and a higher incidence of associated adenomyosis (76.7% vs. 39.1%, p < 0.001) than the salpingectomy group. The cumulative live birth rate was 56.6% after 44 ART cycles in the Essure® group and 40.5% after 99 ART cycles in the salpingectomy group (p = 0.13). In a population of endometriosis patients undergoing ART, women treated by Essure® for management of hydrosalpinx have similar cumulative live birth rates as women treated by laparoscopic salpingectomy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

NA

Code Availability

NA

References

  1. Sampson JA. Metastatic or embolic endometriosis, due to the menstrual dissemination of endometrial tissue into the venous circulation. Am J Pathol. 1927;3(2):2.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chapron C, Marcellin L, Borghese B, Santulli P. Rethinking mechanisms, diagnosis and management of endometriosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2019;15(11):666–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-019-0245-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Maignien C, et al. Prognostic factors for assisted reproductive technology in women with endometriosis-related infertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(3, 3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.1042.

  4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00200-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Strandell A, Thorburn J, Wallin A. The presence of cytokines and growth factors in hydrosalpingeal fluid. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21(7):241–7. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jarg.0000042009.93520.15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Strandell A, Lindhard A. Why does hydrosalpinx reduce fertility? The importance of hydrosalpinx fluid. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2002;17(5):1141–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.5.1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Seli E, et al. Removal of hydrosalpinges increases endometrial leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) expression at the time of the implantation window. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2005;20(11):3012–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei188.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Copperman AB, Wells V, Luna M, Kalir T, Sandler B, Mukherjee T. Presence of hydrosalpinx correlated to endometrial inflammatory response in vivo. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(4):972–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Melo P, et al. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;10(22):CD002125. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002125.pub4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Arora P, Arora RS, Cahill D. Essure(®) for management of hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilisation-a systematic review and pooled analysis. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121(5):527–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12533.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Xu B, Zhang Q, Zhao J, Wang Y, Xu D, Li Y. Pregnancy outcome of in vitro fertilization after Essure and laparoscopic management of hydrosalpinx: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(1):84–95.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.05.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dreyer K, et al. Hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion versus laparoscopic salpingectomy as a treatment for hydrosalpinges prior to IVF or ICSI: an RCT. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2016;31(9):2005–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew050.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Barbosa MW, Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou SI, Mijatovic V, Nastri CO, Martins WP. High miscarriage rate in women treated with Essure® for hydrosalpinx before embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(5):556–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15960.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen SB, et al. In vitro fertilization outcomes after placement of Essure microinserts in patients with hydrosalpinges who previously failed in vitro fertilization treatment: a multicenter study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(6):939–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.05.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zegers-Hochschild F, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2017;32(9):1786–801. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Revzin MV, Moshiri M, Katz DS, Pellerito JS, Mankowski Gettle L, Menias CO. Imaging evaluation of fallopian tubes and related disease: a primer for radiologists. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc. 2020;40(5):1473–501. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2020200051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guerriero S, et al. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of deep endometriosis in the rectosigmoid: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(3):281–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15662.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Medeiros LR, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance in deeply infiltrating endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(3):611–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3470-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Marcellin L, et al. Focal adenomyosis of the outer myometrium and deep infiltrating endometriosis severity. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(4):818–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.05.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chapron C, et al. Questioning patients about their adolescent history can identify markers associated with deep infiltrating endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):877–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.10.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chapron C, et al. Diagnosing adenomyosis: an integrated clinical and imaging approach. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26(3):392–411. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. null Bettocchi, New era of office hysteroscopy, J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 3, no. 4, Supplement, p. S4, 1996.

  23. Franchini M, et al. Essure transcervical tubal sterilization: a 5-year x-ray follow up. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(6):2114–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Gariepy AM. Revisiting Essure--toward safe and effective sterilization. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(15):e17. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1510514.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bourdon M, et al. The deferred embryo transfer strategy seems not to be a good option after repeated IVF/ICSI cycle failures. Reprod Sci Thousand Oaks Calif. 2019;26(9):1210–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719118811648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bourdon M, et al. The deferred embryo transfer strategy improves cumulative pregnancy rates in endometriosis-related infertility: a retrospective matched cohort study. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0194800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kolte AM, et al. Terminology for pregnancy loss prior to viability: a consensus statement from the ESHRE early pregnancy special interest group. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2015;30(3):495–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu299.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2015;30(12):2703–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. T. E. G. G. O. Ovarian Stimulation et al., ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†, Hum Reprod Open, vol. 2020, no. 2, p. hoaa009, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa009.

  30. De Vos A, et al. Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2016;31(11):2442–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;6:CD002118. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kresowik JD, Stegmann BJ, Sparks AE, Ryan GL, van Voorhis BJ. Five-years of a mandatory single-embryo transfer (mSET) policy dramatically reduces twinning rate without lowering pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(6):1367–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Racca A, et al. Single and double embryo transfer provide similar live birth rates in frozen cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol Off J Int Soc Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020;36(9):824–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1712697.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pabuccu R, Onalan G, Kaya C. GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols for stage I-II endometriosis and endometrioma in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(4):832–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.046.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rodriguez-Purata J, Coroleu B, Tur R, Carrasco B, Rodriguez I, Barri PN. Endometriosis and IVF: are agonists really better? Analysis of 1180 cycles with the propensity score matching. Gynecol Endocrinol Off J Int Soc Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(9):859–62. https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2013.808327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Câmara S, de Castro Coelho F, Freitas C, Remesso L. Essure® present controversies and 5 years’ learned lessons: a retrospective study with short- and long-term follow-up. Gynecol Surg. 2017;14(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1023-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Santulli P, et al. Increased rate of spontaneous miscarriages in endometriosis-affected women. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2016;31(5):1014–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang X, et al. Proximal fallopian tubal embolization by interventional radiology prior to embryo transfer in infertile patients with hydrosalpinx: a prospective study of an off-label treatment. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(1):107–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.02.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wu Y-C, et al. Fibered platinum coil: a novel option for the patients of hydrosalpinx with laparoscopic contradiction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;229:179–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.08.579.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen H, Jiang W, Lin G, Lu G, Gong F. Hysteroscopic placement of platinum microinsert in patients with hydrosalpinx before in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(6):1157–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.08.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the staff members of our department for their expert assistance with data collection, particularly Valerie Blanchet, Julia Gonnot, and Célie Cervantes of the ART unit, and we gratefully acknowledge Gaelle Gouet for unabatedly managing the patient database.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculté de Médecine Paris Centre, Faculté de Santé, Université de Paris, 12 Rue de l’École de Médecine, 75006, Paris, France

    Chloé Maignien, Mathilde Bourdon, Juan Pablo Scarano-Pereira, Alessandro Martinino, Meryam Cheloufi, Louis Marcellin, Charles Chapron & Pietro Santulli

  2. Department of Gynecology Obstetrics II and Reproductive Medicine (Professor Chapron), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Universitaire Paris Centre (HUPC), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Cochin, 123 Boulevard de Port Royal, 75014, Paris, France

    Chloé Maignien, Mathilde Bourdon, Juan Pablo Scarano-Pereira, Alessandro Martinino, Meryam Cheloufi, Louis Marcellin, Charles Chapron & Pietro Santulli

  3. Department “Development, Reproduction and Cancer”, Cochin Institute, INSERM U1016 (Professor Batteux), 27 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Jacques, 75014, Paris, France

    Mathilde Bourdon, Louis Marcellin, Charles Chapron & Pietro Santulli

Authors
  1. Chloé Maignien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathilde Bourdon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Pablo Scarano-Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessandro Martinino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meryam Cheloufi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Louis Marcellin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Charles Chapron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Pietro Santulli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PS and CC conceived of and designed the study. CM, MB, MC, JPS, AM, LM, and PS collected the data. CM, MB, JPS, AM, and PS developed the statistical analyses. CM, MC, JPS, AM, and PS authored the manuscript. All of the authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pietro Santulli.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

This study was approved for publication by the Ethics Review Committee of the Cochin University Hospital (CLEP) (n° AAA-2020-08043).

Consent to Participate

All the participants provided written informed consent.

Consent for Publication

All the participants provided written informed consent.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maignien, C., Bourdon, M., Scarano-Pereira, J.P. et al. ART Outcomes After Hysteroscopic Proximal Tubal Occlusion Versus Laparoscopic Salpingectomy for Hydrosalpinx Management in Endometriosis Patients. Reprod. Sci. 29, 427–435 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00737-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00737-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation