Skip to main content

The Treatment of Infertile Patients with Tuboperitoneal Disease. Microsurgery Versus Endoscopy

  • Chapter
Lasers in Gynecology
  • 111 Accesses

Abstract

Historically, surgical reconstruction of structural tubal and ovarian damage has been notoriously unsuccessful and frustrating. Inadequate surgical techniques and gross instruments and suture materials often led to greater postoperative iatrogenic damage, and the most extensive and complicated operations were followed by the most complicated and extensive postoperative tuboperitoneal adhesions [7]. The average pregnancy rate reported was 15.6% [12], surprisingly enough with no difference between surgical correction of proximal or distant tubal occlusion.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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. Boer-Meisel ME, Te Velde ER, Habbema JDF, Karduen JWPF (1986) Predicting the pregnancy outcome in patients treated for hydrosalpinx: a prospective study. Fertil Steril 45:23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bruhat MA, Wattiez A, Mage G, Pouly JL, Canis M (1989) CO2 Laser laparoscopy. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 3:487.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. DeCherney AH, Mezer HC, Naftolin F (1983) Analysis of failure of microsurgical anastomosis after mid-segment, non-coagulation tubal ligation. Fertil Steril 39:618.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Donnez J, Nisolle M (1989) CO2 Laser laparoscopic surgery. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 3:525.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Donnez J, Nisolle M, Casanas-Roux F (1989) CO2 Laser laparoscopy in tubal infertility. In: Donnez J (ed) Laser operative laparoscopy and hysteroscopy. Nauwelaerts, Leuven, pp 161.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gauwerky, Wallwiener D, Human Reprod.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Grant A (1971) Infertility surgery of the oviduct. Fertil Steril 22:496.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lavy G, Diamond MP, De Cherney AH (1987) Ectopic pregnancy: its relationship to tubal reconstructive surgery. Fertil Steril 47:543.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Madelenat P, Palmer R (1973) Etude critique des libérations per-coelioscopiques des adhérences péri-annexielles. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 8:347.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Maran R, Quagliarello J (1988) Distal tubal occlusion: microsurgery versus in vitro fertilization — a review. Int J Fertil 33:107.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schoysman R (1984) Tubal microsurgery versus in vitro fertilization. Acta Eur Fertil 15:5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Siegler AM, Hellman LM (1956) Tubal plastic surgery. Report of a survey. Fertil Steril 7:170.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hohl, M.K. (1992). The Treatment of Infertile Patients with Tuboperitoneal Disease. Microsurgery Versus Endoscopy. In: Bastert, G., Wallwiener, D. (eds) Lasers in Gynecology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45683-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45683-1_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-45685-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45683-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics