Skip to main content

Is Reproductive Microsurgery Dead or Has Its Demise Been Greatly Exaggerated?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 607 Accesses

Part of the book series: Reproductive Medicine for Clinicians ((REMECL,volume 1))

Abstract

The indications for reproductive surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology (ART) are twofold: (1) primary treatment of tubo-ovarian disease, adhesions, and other pelvic pathologies to give the patient the opportunity to achieve spontaneous conception and (2) treatment of uterine, adnexal, and other conditions that would adversely affect the outcome of assisted reproduction.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Suggested Reading

  1. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. ASRM 2012 committee opinion: role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:539–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted reproductive technology 2014 national summary report. Available at: www.cdc.gov/art/ART2014.

  3. Kupka MS, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, d’Hooghe T, Castilla JA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2099–113.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gomel V. The place of reconstructive tubal surgery in the era of ART. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:722–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gomel V. Reconstructive tubal microsurgery and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:887–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Koninckx PR, Gomel V. Role of the peritoneal cavity in the prevention of postoperative adhesions, pain, and fatigue. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:998–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Koninckx PR, Gomel V. Introduction: quality of pelvic surgery and postoperative adhesions. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:991–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gomel V, Koninckx PR. Microsurgical principles and postoperative adhesions: lessons from the past. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1025–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 IAHR (International Academy of Human Reproduction)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gomel, V. (2018). Is Reproductive Microsurgery Dead or Has Its Demise Been Greatly Exaggerated?. In: Schenker, J., Sciarra, J., Mettler, L., Genazzani, A., Birkhaeuser, M. (eds) Reproductive Medicine for Clinical Practice. Reproductive Medicine for Clinicians, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78009-2_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78009-2_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78008-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78009-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics