Prognostic Factors of Distal Tubal Occlusion

  • J. Donnez
  • M. Nisolle

Abstract

This chapter defines the prognostic factors associated with successful tubal surgery. New perspectives have emerged in the management of distal tubal occlusion from the tremendous advances gained in the field of assisted reproduction technology and in operative endo-scopy techniques. With regard to surgery, it has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that classical mi-crosurgery1–3 and laparoscopic surgery4–9 show comparable results in terms of pregnancy rates. No doubt the crucial issue in the surgical management of distal tubal occlusion is the proper selection of the patient according to a set of strict criteria, which have a prognostic value on the chances of postoperative conception.

Keywords

Attenuation Transportation Prostaglandin Luminal Peri 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Swolin K. Electromicrosurgery and salpingostomy: long-term results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1975; 121:418–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gomel V. Salpingostomy by microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1978; 34:380–385.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winston RML. Microsurgery of the fallopian tube: from fantasy to reality. Fertil Steril 1980; 46:521–530.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gomel V. Salpingostomy by laparoscopy. J Reprod Med 1977; 18:265–267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daniell JF, Herbert CM. Laparoscopic salpingostomy utilizing the CO2 laser. Fertil Steril 1984; 41:558–563.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donnez J, Nisolle M, Casanas-Roux F. CO2 laser laparoscopy in infertile women with adnexal adhesions and women with tubal occlusion. J Gynecol Surg 1989; 5:47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dubuisson JB, de Jolinière JB, Aubriot FX, et al. Terminal tuboplasties by laparoscopy: 65 consecutive cases. Fertil Steril 1990; 54:401–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mettler LR, Irani S, Kapamadzija A, et al. Pelviscopic tubal surgery: the acceptable vogue. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1990; 5:971–974.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Canis M, Mage G, Pouly JL, et al. Laparoscopic distal tuboplasties: reports of 87 cases and a 4-year experience. Fertil Steril 1991; 56:616–621.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donnez J. La trompe de Fallope: hystopathologie normale et pathologique. Université Catholique de Louvain, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Afzelius BA, Camner P, Mossberg B. On the function of the cilia in the female reproductive tract. Fertil Steril 1978; 29:72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Donnez J, Caprasse J, Casanas-Roux F, et al. Loss of adren-ergic innervation in rabbit induced hydrosalpinx. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1986; 21:213–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mol BWJ, Swart P, Bossuyt PMM, et al. Reproducibility of the interpretation of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1996; 11:1204–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Swart P, Mol BWJ, van der Veen F, et al. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology, a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:486–491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atri M, Tran CN, Bret PT, et al. Accuracy of endo-vaginal sonography for the detection of fallopian tube blockage. Ultrasound Med 1994; 13(3):429–434.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schiller VL, Tsuchiyama K. Development of hydrosalpinx during ovulation induction. J Ultrasound Med 1995; 14:799–803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friberg B, Joergensen C. Tubal patency studied by ultra-sonography. A pilot study. Acta Obst Gynecol Scand 1994; 73:53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heikkinen H, Tekay A, Volpi E, et al. Transvaginal salpin-gosonography for the assessment of tubal patency in infertile women: methodological and clinical experiences. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:293–298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Volpi E, Piermatteo M, Zuccaro G, et al. The role of trans-vaginal sonosalpingography in the evaluation of tubal patency. Minerva Ginecol 1996; 48:1–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Allahbadia GN. Fallopian tubal patency using color Doppier. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1996; 40:241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yarali H, Gurgan T, Erden A, et al. Colour Doppler hys-terosalpingosonography: a simple and potentially useful methods to evaluate fallopian tube patency. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1994; 9:64–66.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brosens I, Boeckx W, Delattin P, et al. Salpingoscopy: a new pre-operative diagnostic tool in tubal infertility. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94:768–773.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Bruyne F, Puttemans P, Boeckx W, et al. The clinical value of salpingoscopy in tubal infertility. Fertil Steril 1989; 51:339–340.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kerin J, Daykhovsky L, Grundfest W, et al. Falloscopy. A microendoscopic transvaginal technique for diagnosing and treating endotubal disease incorporating guide wire cannulation and direct balloon tuboplasty. J Reprod Med 1990; 35:606–612.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gomel V, Taylor PJ. In vitro fertilization versus reconstructive tubal surgery. J Assist Reprod Genet 1992; 9:306–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gomel V, Yarali H. Infertility surgery: microsurgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1992; 4:390–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Donnez J, Casanas-Roux F. Prognostic factors of f imbrial microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1986; 46:200–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singhal V, Li TC, Cooke ID. An analysis of factors influencing the outcome of 232 consecutive tubal microsurgery cases. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98:628–636.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society: classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian abnormalities and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988; 49:944–955.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vasquez G, Boeckx W, Brosens I. Prospective study of tubal mucosal lesions and fertility in hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1995; 10:1075–1078.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mage G, Pouly JL, Bouquet de Jolinière J, et al. A preoper-ative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates after distal microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1986; 46:807–810.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schlief R, Deichert U. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography of the uterus and fallopian tube: results of a clinical trial of a new contrast medium in 120 patients. Radiology 1991; 178:213–215.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peters AJ, Coulam CB. Hysterosalpingography with color doppler ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164:1530–1534.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stern J, Peters AJ, Coulam CB. Color Doppler ultrasonography assessment of tubal patency: a comparison study with traditional techniques. Fertil Steril 1992; 58:897–900.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dunphy BC. Office falloscopic assessment in proximal tubal occlusive disease. Fertil Steril 1994; 61:168–170.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kerin JF, Williams DB, San Roman GA, et al. Falloscopic classification and treatment of fallopian tube lumen disease. Fertil Steril 1992; 57:731–741.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cornier E, Feintuch MJ, Bouccara L. Ampullafibro-tuboscopy. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1985; 14:459–466.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schlaff WD, Hassiakos DK, Damewood MD, et al. Neosal-pingostomy for distal tubal obstruction: prognostic factors and impact of surgical technique. Fertil Steril 1990; 54:984–990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Boer-Meisel ME, Te Velde ER, Habbema JDF, et al. Predicting the pregnancy outcome in patients treated for hydrosalpinx: a prospective study. Fertil Steril 1986; 45:23–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Morice P, et al. Laparoscopic salpingostomy: fertility results according to the tubal mucosal appearance. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1994; 9:334–339.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Marana R, Muscatello P, Muzii L, et al. Perlaparoscopic salpingoscopy in the evaluation of the tubal factor in infertile women. IntJ Fertil 1990; 35:211–214.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Herschlag A, Seifer DB, Carcangiu ML, et al. Salpingoscopy: light microscopic and electron microscopic correlations. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77:399–405.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Donnez J, Nisolle M, Casanas-Roux F, et al. CO2 laser lapa-roscopic surgery: adhesiolysis, salpingostomy and fimbrio-plasty. In: Donnez J, Nisolle M, eds. Atlas of Laser Operative Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy. London: Parthenon, 1994:97–112.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Marana R, Muzii L, Rizzi M, et al. Salpingoscopy in patients with contralateral ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1991; 55:838–840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brosens I, Vasquez G. Fimbrial microbiopsy. J Reprod Med 1976; 16:171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Strandell A, Waidenstrom U, Nilsson L, et al. Hydro-salpinx reduces in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1994; 9:861–863.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dubuisson JB, Aubriot FX, Mathieu L, et al. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy in 556 pregnancies after in vitro fertilization: implications for preventive management. Fertil Steril 1991; 56:686–690.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Laatikainen TJ, Tenhumen AK, Venesmaa PK, et al. Factors influencing the success of microsurgery for distal tubal occlusion. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1988; 243:101–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dlugi AM, Reddy S, Saleh WA, et al. Pregnancy rates after operative endoscopic treatment of total (neosalpingos-tomy) or near total (salpingostomy) distal tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril 1994; 62:913–920.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Donnez J. CO2 laser laparoscopy in infertile women with endometriosis and women with adnexal adhesions. Fertil Steril 1987; 48:390.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nehzat F, Winer WK, Nehzat C. Fimbrioscopy and salpingoscopy in patients with minimal to moderate pelvic endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:15–17.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nackley AC, Muasher SJ. The significance of hydrosalpinx in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1998; 69:373–384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sims JA, Jones D, Butler L, et al. Effect of hydrosalpinx on outcome in in vitro fertilization (IVF). Presented at the 49th annual meeting of the American Fertility Society, 1993, program supplement 1993:S95.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Andersen A, Yue Z, Meng F, et al. Low implantation rate after in vitro fertilization in patients with hydrosalpinges diagnosed by ultrasonography. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1994; 9:1935–1938.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vandromme J, Chasse E, Lejeune B, et al. Hydrosalpinges in in vitro fertilization: an unfavorable prognostic feature. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1995; 10:576–579.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vejtorp M, Petersen K, Andersen AN, et al. Fertilization in vitro in the presence of hydrosalpinx and in advanced age. Ugeskr Laeg 1995; 157:4131–4134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Donnez J, Polet R, Nisolle M. Prognostic factors of distal tubal occlusion. Ref Gynecol Obstet 1993; 1:94–102.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Freeman MR, Whitworth CM, Hill GA. Hydrosalpinx reduces in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer rates and in vitro blastocyst development. Presented at the 52nd annual meeting of the American Fertility Society, 1996, program supplement 1996:S211.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Akman MA, Garcia JE, Damewood MD, et al. Hydrosalpinx affects the implantation of previously cryopre-served embryos. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1996; 11:1013–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Herman A, Ron-El R, Golan A, et al. The role of tubal pathology and other parameters in ectopic pregnancies occurring in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1990; 54:79–87.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Martinez F, Trounson A. An analysis of risk factors associated with ectopic pregnacy in a human in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1986; 45:79–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Steptoe P, Edwards R. Reimplantation of a human embryo with subsequent tubal pregnancy. Lancet 1976; 1:880.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zouvres C, Erenus M, Gomel V. Tubal ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: a role for proximal occlusion or salpingectomy after failed distal tubal surgery. Fertil Steril 1991; 56:691–695.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Steptoe PC. Pregnancies following implantation of human embryos grown in culture. Presented at the 45th annual meeting of the American Fertility Society, 1989, program supplement 1989:S152.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tucker M, Smith D, Pike I, et al. Ectopic pregnancy following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Lancet 1981; 2:1278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Herman A, Ron-El R, Golan A, et al. The dilemna of optimal surgical procedure in ectopic pregnancies occurring in in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1991; 6:1167–1169.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Schenk LM, Ramey JW, Taylor SL, et al. Embryotoxicity of hydrosalpinx fluid. Presented at the 43rd annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Investigators 1996. J Soc Gynecol Invest 1996;88A.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mukherjee T, Copperman AB, McCaffrey C, et al. Hydrosalpinx fluid has embryotoxic effects on murine embryo-genesis: a case for prophylactic salpingectomy. Fertil Steril 1996; 66:851–853.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lessey BA, Castelbaum AJ, Riben M, et al. Effect of hydrosalpinges on markers of uterine receptivity and success in IVF. Presented at the 50th annual meeting of the American Fertility Society, 1994, program supplement 1994:S45.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Puttemans PJ, Brosens IA. Preventive salpingectomy of hydrosalpinx prior to IVF. Salpingectomy improves in vitro fertilization outcome in patients with a hydrosalpinx: blind victimization of the fallopian tube? Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1996; 11:2079–2084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Shelton KE, Butler L, Toner JP, et al. Salpingectomy improves the pregnancy rate in in vitro fertilization with hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1996; 11:523–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kassabji M, Sims J, Butler L, et al. Reduced pregnancy rates with unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinx after in vitro fertilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994; 56:129–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Levy MJ, Murray D, Sagoskin A. The adverse effect of hydrosalpinges on IVF success rates are reversed equally well by salpingectomy, proximal tubal occlusion and neosalpingostomy. Presented at the meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 1996, program supplement 1996:S64.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Donnez J, Wauters M, Thomas K. Luteal function after tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 37:38.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    McComb P, Delbelke L. Decreasing the number of ovulations in the rabbit with surgical division of the blood vessels between the fallopian tube and ovary. J Reprod Med 1984; 29:827–829.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sharif K, Kaufmann S, Sharma V. Heteropic pregnancy obtained after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer following bilateral total salpingectomy: case report. Hum Re-prod (Oxf) 1994; 9:1966–1967.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Pavic N, Neuenschwander E, Gschwind C, et al. Interstitial pregnancy following bilateral salpingectomy and in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1986; 46:701–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Donnez
  • M. Nisolle

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations