Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic Treatment of Peritoneal Adhesions

  • Chapter
Peritoneal Surgery

  • 310 Accesses

Abstract

Peritoneal adhesions are common, although the true prevalence of adhesions in the general population can only be deduced from indirect evidence. In asymptomatic women undergoing laparoscopic tubal sterilization, pelvic adhesions are found in 12% to 14%.1,2 Similarly, in general surgery patients with no history of prior laparotomies there is a 10% prevalence of adhesions.3 In symptomatic patients, adhesions are seen even more frequently. A retrospective review of 100 consecutive laparoscopies performed for chronic pelvic pain found that 26% of patients had pelvic adhesions as the only pathologic finding. In the same study, the comparison group of infertility patients undergoing laparoscopy had pelvic adhesions in 39% of cases.4 Patients who have undergone surgery following one or more prior laparotomies are found to have adhesions in up to 93% of cases.3

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 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Kresch AJ, Seifer DB, Sachs LB, et al. Laparoscopy in 100 women with chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 64:672–674.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Trimbos JB, Trimbos-Kemper GCM, Peters AAW, et al. Findings in 200 consecutive asymptomatic women, having a laparoscopic sterilization. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1990; 247:121–124.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Menzies D, Ellis H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions—how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1990; 72:60–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rapkin AJ. Adhesions and pelvic pain: a retrospective study. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 68:13–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ray NF, Larsen JW Jr, Stillman RJ, et al. Economic impact of hospitalizations for lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in 1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993; 176:271–276.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ray NF, Denton WG, Thamer M, et al. Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 186:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stovall TG, Elder RF, Ling FW. Predictors of pelvic adhesions. J Reprod Med 1989; 34:345–348.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Karasick S, Goldfarb AF. Peritubal adhesions in infertile women: diagnosis with hysterosalpingography. AJR 1989; 152:777–779.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Swart P, Mol BWJ, ptvan der Veen F, et al. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:486–491.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bateman BG, Nunley WC, Kitchin JD, et al. Utility of the 24-hour delay hysterosalpingogram film. Fertil Steril 1987; 47:613–617.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Lai MP, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis of pelvic adhesions. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1997; 12:2649–2653.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ubaldi F, Wisanto A, Camus M, et al. The role of transvaginal ultrasonography in the detection of pelvic pathologies in the infertility workup. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1998; 13:330–333.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Caprini JA, Arcelus JA, Swanson J, et al. The ultrasonic localization of abdominal wall adhesions. Surg Endosc 1995; 9:283–285.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sigel B, Golub RM, Loiacono LA, et al. Technique of ultrasonic detection and mapping of abdominal wall adhesions. Surg Endosc 1991; 5:161–165.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kolecki RV, Golub RM, Sigel B, et al. Accuracy of viscera slide detection of abdominal wall adhesions by ultrasound. Surg Endosc 1994; 8:871–874.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kodama I, Loiacono LA, Sigel B, et al. Ultrasonic detection of viscera slide as an indicator of abdominal wall ad-hesions. J Clin Ultrasound 1992; 20:375–380.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Luciano AA, Maier DB, Koch El, et al. A comparative study of postoperative adhesions following laser surgery by laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the rabbit model. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74:220–224.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jorgensen JO, Lalak NJ, Hunt DR. Is laparoscopy associated with a lower rate of postoperative adhesions than laparotomy? A comparative study in the rabbit. Aust N Z J Surg 1995; 65:342–344.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lundorff P, Hahlin M, Källfelt B, et al. Adhesion formation after laparoscopic surgery in tubal pregnancy: a randomized trial versus laparotomy. Fertil Steril 1991; 55:911–915.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Operative Laparoscopy Study Group. Postoperative adhesion development after operative laparoscopy: evaluation at early second look procedures. Fertil Steril 1991; 55:700–704.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tittel A, Schippers E, Treutner KH, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy. An animal experiment study comparing adhesion formation in the dog. Langenbecks Arch Chir 1994; 379:95–98.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Levrant SG, Bieber EJ, Barnes RB. Anterior abdominal wall adhesions after laparotomy or laparoscopy. J Am As-soc Gynecol Laparosc 1997; 4:353–456.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kontoravdis A, Chryssikopoulos A, Hassiakos D, et al. The diagnostic value of laparoscopy in 2365 patients with acute and chronic pelvic pain. Int J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 52:243–248.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Steege JF, Stout AL. Resolution of chronic pelvic pain after laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165:278–283.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Stout AL, Steege JF, Dodson WC, et al. Relationship of laparoscopic findings to self-report of pelvic pain. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164:73–79.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Alexander-Williams J. Do adhesions cause pain? BMJ 1987; 294:659–660.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Goldstein DP, de Cholnoky C, Emans SJ, et al. Laparoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pelvic pain in adolescents. J Reprod Med 1980; 24:251–256.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Peters AAW, Trimbos-Kemper GCM, Admiraal C, et al. A randomized clinical trial on the benefit of adhesiolysis in patients with intraperitoneal adhesions and chronic pelvic pain. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 99:59–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gomel V. Laparoscopic tubal surgery in infertility. Obstet Gynecol 1975; 46:47–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Drolette CM, Badawy SZA. Pathophysiology of pelvic adhesions: modern trends in preventing infertility. J Reprod Med 1992; 37:107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hershlag A, Diamond MP, DeCherney AH. Adhesiolysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1991; 34:395–402.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hulka JF, Omran K, Berger GS. Classification of adnexal adhesions: a proposal and evaluation of its prognostic value. Fertil Steril 1978; 30:661–665.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fayez JA. An assessment of the role of operative laparoscopy in tuboplasty. Fertil Steril 1983; 39:476–479.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Caspi E, Halperin Y, Bukovsky I. The importance of peri-adnexal adhesions in tubal reconstructive surgery for infertility. Fertil Steril 1979; 31:296–300.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Al-Shawaf T, Ah-Moye M, Fiamanya W, et al. Gamete intra-fallopian transfer in non-endometriotic adhesions. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1990; 5:434–438.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Fakih H, Marshall J. Subtle tubal abnormalities adversely affect gamete intrafallopian transfer outcome in women with endometriosis. Fertil Steril 1994; 62:799–801.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Csemiczky G, Landgren BM, Fried G, et al. High tubal damage grade is associated with low pregnancy rate in women undergoing in-vitro fertilization treatment. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1996; 11:2438–2440.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI. Ovarian super-stimulation in the treatment of infertility due to peri-tubal and periovarian adhesions. Fertil Steril 1989; 51:834–837.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hamilton CJCM, Evers JLH, Hoogland HJ. Ovulatory disorders and inflammatory adnexal damage: a neglected cause of failure of fertility microsurgery. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 93:282–284.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Levinson CJ, Swolin K. Postoperative adhesions: etiology, prevention, and therapy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1980; 23:1213–1220.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bowman MC, Cooke ID, Lenton EA. Investigation of impaired ovarian function as a contributing factor to infertility in women with pelvic adhesions. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1993; 8:1654–1656.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Mahadevan MM, Wiseman D, Leader A, et al. The effects of ovarian adhesive disease upon follicular development in cycles of controlled stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1985; 44:489–492.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Molloy D, Martin M, Speirs A, et al. Performance of patients with a “frozen pelvis” in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1987; 47:450–455.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Diamond MP, Pellicer A, Boyers SP, et al. The effect of periovarian adhesions on follicular development in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1988; 49:100–103.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Tulandi T, Collins JA, Burrows E, et al. Treatment-dependent and treatment-independent pregnancy among women with periadnexal adhesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162:354–357.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Bowman MC, Cooke ID. Comparison of fallopian tube intraluminal pathology as assessed by salpingoscopy with pelvic adhesions. Fertil Steril 1994; 61:464–469.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Trimbos-Kemper TCM, Trimbos JB, van Hall EV. Adhesion formation after tubal surgery: results of the eighth-day laparoscopy in 188 patients. Fertil Steril 1985; 43:395–400.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Tulandi T, Falcone T, Kafka I. Second-look operative laparoscopy 1 year following reproductive surgery. Fertil Steril 1989; 52:421–424.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Oelsner G, Sivan E, Goldenberg M, et al. Should lysis of adhesions be performed when in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer are available? Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1994; 9:2339–2341.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Krebs HB, Goplerud DR. Mechanical intestinal obstruction in patients with gynecologic disease: a review of 368 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157:577–583.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Menzies D. Peritoneal adhesions: incidence, cause and prevention. Surg Ann 1992; 24:27–45.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Brightwell NL, McFee AS, Aust JB. Bowel obstruction and the long tube stent. Arch Surg 1977; 112:505–511.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Silva PD, Cogbill TH. Laparoscopic treatment of recurrent small bowel obstruction. Wis Med J 1991; 90:169–170.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Adams S, Wilson T, Brown AR. Laparoscopic management of acute small bowel obstruction. Aust N ZJ Surg 1993; 63:39–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Bailey IS, Rhodes M, O’Rourke N, et al. Laparoscopic management of acute small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 1998; 85:84–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Thompson JN, Paterson-Brown S, Harbourne T, et al. Reduced human peritoneal plasminogen activator activity: possible mechanism of adhesion formation. Br J Surg 1989; 76:382–384.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Ellis H. The cause and prevention of postoperative intraperitoneal adhesions. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1971; 133:497–511.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Gervin AS, Puckett CL, Silver D. Serosal hypofibrinolysis: a cause of postoperative adhesions. Am J Surg 1973; 125:80–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Weibel MA, Majno G. Peritoneal adhesions and their relation to abdominal surgery: a postmortem study. Am J Surg 1973; 126:345–353.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Holtz G. Adhesion induction by suture of varying tissue reactivity and caliber. Int J Fertil 1982; 27:134–135.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Ryan GB, Grobéty J, Majno G. Postoperative peritoneal adhesions: a study of the mechanisms. Am J Pathol 1971; 65:117–138.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Brill AI, Nezhat F, Nezhat CH, et al. The incidence of adhesions after prior laparotomy: a laparoscopic appraisal. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85:269–272.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Metzger DA. Trochar injuries to the small intestine. In: Corfman RS, Diamond MP, DeCherney AH, eds. Complications of Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy. Maiden: Black-well, 1997:38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Hasson HM. A modified instrument and method for laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1971; 110:886–887.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Hasson HM. Open laparoscopy: a report of 150 cases. J Re-prod Med 1974; 12:234–258.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Nezhat FR, Silfen SL, Evans D, et al. Comparison of direct insertion of disposable and standard reusable laparoscopic trochars and previous pneumoperitoneum with the veress needle. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78:148–150.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Dingfelder JR. Direct laparoscope trochar insertion without prior pneumoperitoneum. J Reprod Med 1978; 21:45–47.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Byron JW, Fujiyoshi CA, Miyazawa K. Evaluation of the direct trochar insertion technique at laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74:423–425.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Childers JM, Brzechffa PR, Surwit EA. Laparoscopy using the left upper quadrant as the primary trochar site. Gynecol Oncol 1993; 50:221–225.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Reich H, McGlynn F, Salvat J. Laparoscopic treatment of cul-de-sac obliteration secondary to retrocervical deep fibrotic endometriosis. J Reprod Med 1991; 36:516–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Reich H. Lysis of adhesions. In: Hulka JF, Reich H, eds. Textbook of Laparoscopy, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1998:257–267.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Munro MG. Energy sources for operative laparoscopy. In: Gomel V, Taylor PJ, eds. Diagnostic and Operative Gynecologic Laparoscopy. St. Louis: Mosby, 1995:26–56.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Reich H. Laparoscopic treatment of extensive pelvic adhesions, including hydrosalpinx. J Reprod Med 1987; 32:736–742.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Yanagibori A, Kojima E, Ohtaka K, et al. Nd:YAG laser therapy for infertility with a contact-type probe. J Reprod Med 1989; 34:456–460.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Diamond MP, DeCherney AH, Polan ML. Laparoscopic use of the argon laser in nonendometriotic reproductive pelvic surgery. J Reprod Med 1986; 31:1011–1013.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Badawy SZA, El Bakry MM, Baggish MS. Comparative study of continuous and pulsed CO2 laser on tissue healing and fertility outcome in tubal anastomosis. Fertil Steril 1987; 47:843–847.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Filmar S, Gomel V, McComb P. The effectiveness of CO2 laser and electromicrosurgery in adhesiolysis: a comparative study. Fertil Steril 1986; 45:407–411.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Tulandi T. Adhesion reformation after reproductive surgery with and without the carbon dioxide laser. Fertil Steril 1987; 47:704–706.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Diamond MP, Daniell JF, Martin DC, et al. Tubal patency and pelvic adhesions at early second-look laparoscopy following intraabdominal use of the carbon dioxide laser: initial report of the Intraabdominal Laser Study Group. Fertil Steril 1984; 42:717–723.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Barbot J, Parent B, Dubuisson JB, et al. A clinical study of the CO2 laser and electrosurgery for adhesiolysis in 172 cases followed by early second-look laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 1987; 48:140–142.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Luciano AA, Whitman G, Maier DB, et al. A comparison of thermal injury, healing patterns, and postoperative adhesion formation following CO2 laser and electromicrosurgery. Fertil Steril 1987; 48:1025–1029.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Tulandi T. Salpingo-ovariolysis: a comparison between laser surgery and electrosurgery. Fertil Steril 1986:45:489–491.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Adhesion Study Group. Reduction of postoperative pelvic adhesions with intraperitoneal 32% dextran 70: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 1983:40:612–619.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Redwine DB. Complications of sharp and blunt adhesiolysis. In: Corfman RS, Diamond MP, DeCherney AH, eds. Complications of Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy. Maiden: Blackwell, 1997:78–81.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Keckstein J, Ulrich U, Sasse V, et al. Reduction of postoperative adhesion formation after laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1996; 11:579–582.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. DeCherney AH, Mezer HC. The nature of posttuboplasty pelvic adhesions as determined by early and late laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 1984; 41:643–646.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Jansen RPS. Early laparoscopy after pelvic operations to prevent adhesions: safety and efficacy. Fertil Steril 1988; 49:26–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Surrey MW, Friedman S. Second-look laparoscopy after reconstructive pelvic surgery for infertility. J Reprod Med 1982; 27:658–660.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Azziz R, Interceed (TC7) Adhesion Barrier Study Group II. Microsurgery alone or with Interceed absorbable adhesion barrier for pelvic sidewall adhesion reformation. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993; 177:135–139.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Perez RJ. Second-look laparoscopy adhesiolysis: the procedure of choice for preventing adhesion recurrence. J Reprod Med 1991; 36:700–702.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Serour GI, Badraoui MH, El Agizi HM, et al. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for infertile patients with pelvic adhesive disease. Int J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 30:249–252.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Jansen RPS. Failure of peritoneal irrigation with heparin during pelvic operations upon young women to reduce adhesions. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1988; 166:154–160.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Saravelos HG, Li TC, Cooke ID. An analysis of the outcome of microsurgical and laparoscopic adhesiolysis for chronic pelvic pain. Hum Reprod (Oxf) 1995; 10:2895–2901.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Miller K, Mayer E, Moritz E. The role of laparoscopy in chronic and recurrent abdominal pain. Am J Surg 1996; 172:353–357.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Sutton C, MacDonald R. Laser laparoscopic adhesiolysis. J Gynecol Surg 1990; 6:155–159.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Chan CLK, Wood C. Pelvic adhesiolysis—the assessment of symptom relief by 100 patients. Aust N ZJ Obstet Gynecol 1985; 25:295–298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Fayez JA, Suliman SO. Infertility surgery of the oviduct: comparison between macrosurgery and microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1982; 37:73–78.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Jansen RPS. Surgery-pregnancy time intervals after sal-pingolysis, unilateral salpingostomy, and bilateral salpin-gostomy. Fertil Steril 1980; 34:222–225.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Kelly RW, Roberts DK. Experience with the carbon dioxide laser in gynecologic microsurgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 146:585–588.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Frantzen C, Schlösser HW. Microsurgery and postinfec-tious tubal infertility. Fertil Steril 1982; 38:397–402.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. 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-stetGynecol 1982; 144:141–148.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Luber K, Beeson CC, Kennedy JF, et al. Results of micro-surgical treatment of tubal infertility and early second-look laparoscopy in the post-pelvic inflammatory disease patient: implications for in vitro fertilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154:1264–1270.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Diamond E. Lysis of postoperative pelvic adhesions in infertility. Fertil Steril 1979; 31:287–295.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Wallach EE, Manara LR, Eisenberg E. Experience with 143 cases of tubal surgery. Fertil Steril 1983; 39:609–6l7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Caspi E, Halperin Y. Surgical management of periadnexal adhesions. Int J Fertil 1981; 26:49–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Donnez J. CO2 laser laparoscopy in infertile women with endometriosis and women with adnexal adhesions. Fertil Steril 1987; 48:390–394.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Gomel V. Salpingo-ovariolysis by laparoscopy in infertility. Fertil Steril 1983; 40:607–611.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Christine H. Holschneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan H. DeCherney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Livingston Research Institute, University of Southern California School of Medicine, 1321 N. Mission Rd., Los Angeles, California, 90033, USA

    Gere S. diZerega M.D. (Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology) (Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Holschneider, C.H., DeCherney, A.H. (2000). Laparoscopic Treatment of Peritoneal Adhesions. In: diZerega, G.S. (eds) Peritoneal Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1194-5_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1194-5_33

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-7040-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-1194-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation