Infertility and Adhesions

  • Riccardo Marana
  • Ludovico Muzii


Pelvic adhesions may be the cause of bowel obstruction, pelvic pain, and infertility. Tubal factor infertility accounts for approximately 40% of the cases of female infertility.1 Identifiable causes of tubal infertility are postinfectious tubal damage, endometriosis-related adhesions, and postsurgical adhesion formation.


Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Term Pregnancy Outer Sheath Pelvic Adhesion American Fertility Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Westrom L. Incidence, prevalence, and trends of acute pelvic inflammatory disease and its consequences in industrialized countries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 138:880–892.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diamond MP, Daniell JF, Feste J, et al. Adhesion reformation and de novo adhesion formation after reproductive pelvic surgery. Fertil Steril 1987; 47:864–866.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caspi E, Halperin Y, Bukovsky I. The importance of peri-adnexal adhesions in tubal reconstructive surgery for infertility. Fertil Steril 1979; 31:296–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hulka JF. Adnexal adhesions: a prognostic staging and classification system based on a five-year survey of fertility surgery results at Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Am J Ob-stet Gynecol 1982; 144:141–148.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henry-Suchet J, Loffredo V, Tesquier L, et al. Endoscopy of the tube (=tuboscopy): its prognostic value for tubo-plasties. Acta Eur Fertil 1985; 16:139–145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Morice P, et al. Laparoscopic salpingostomy: fertility results according to the tubal mu-cosa appearance. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1994; 9:334–339.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marana R, Rizzi M, Muzii L, et al. Correlation between the American Fertility Society classification of adnexal adhesions and distal tubal occlusion, salpingoscopy, and reproductive outcome in tubal surgery. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:924–929.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Bruyne F, Hucke J, Willers R. The prognostic value of salpingoscopy. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1997; 12:266–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rock JA, Katayama KP, Martin, EJ, et al. Factors influencing the success of salpingostomy techniques for distal fim-brial occlusion. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52:591–596.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boer-Meisel ME, te Velde ER, Habbema JDF, et al. Predicting the pregnancy outcome in patients treated for hydro-salpinx: a prospective study. Fertil Steril 1986; 45:23–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mage G, Pouly JL, de Joliniere JB, et al. A preoperative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rate after distal tubal microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1986; 46:807–810.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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; 49:944–955.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Puttemans P, Brosens IA, Delattin PH, et al. Salpingoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in hydrosalpinges. Human Reprod (Oxf) 1987; 2:535–540.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vasquez G, Boeckx W, Brosens I. No correlation between peritubal and mucosal adhesions in hydrosalpinges. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:1032–1033.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heylen SM, Brosens IA, Puttemans PJ, Clinical value and cumulative pregnancy rates following rigid salpingoscopy during laparoscopy for infertility. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1995; 10:2913–2916.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marana R, Muzii L, Rizzi M, et al. Salpingoscopy in patients with endometriosis-associated infertility. Acta Eur Fertil 1990; 21:247–249.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nezhat F, Winer WK, Nezhat C. Fimbrioscopy and salpingoscopy in patients with minimal to moderate pelvic en-dometriosis. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:15–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dunphy BC, Greene CA. Falloposcopic cannulation of oviducts: mucosal appearances and prediction of treatment independent intrauterine pregnancy. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1995; 10:3313–3316.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kerin JF, Williams DB, San Roman GA, et al. Falloposcopic classification and treatment of fallopian tube lumen disease. Fertil Steril 1992; 57:731–741.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gomel V. From microsurgery to laparoscopic surgery: a progress. Fertil Steril 1995; 63:464–468.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Marana
  • Ludovico Muzii

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations