Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Jul 19;2006(3):CD004144.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004144.pub2.

In vitro fertilisation versus tubal reanastomosis (sterilisation reversal) for subfertility after tubal sterilisation

M Yossry  1 , M Aboulghar, A D'Angelo, W Gillett
Affiliations

In vitro fertilisation versus tubal reanastomosis (sterilisation reversal) for subfertility after tubal sterilisation

M Yossry et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Tubal sterilisation is the most popular contraceptive method in the world. Approximately 138 million women of reproductive age have had tubal sterilisation and there is evidence that increasingly younger women are being sterilized. With such large numbers of women choosing this option of birth control, it is clear that even if a small percentage of women later regret the decision, large numbers of women will seek counselling regarding reversal from their physicians.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of surgical tubal reanastomosis and in vitro fertilisation in terms of live birth rates. The morbidity and cost-effectiveness of both techniques were also to be compared.

Search strategy: The following databases were searched: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Review Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2005), EMBASE (1980 to 2005), and other electronic databases. We handsearched the reference lists of trials, reviews and relevant textbooks; searched abstracts from relevant conferences, and personally communicated with experts in the field.

Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing surgical reversal of tubal sterilisation with in vitro fertilisation (IVF). The method of allocation will be assessed and results subgrouped according to whether the trials were randomised or quasi-randomised.

Data collection and analysis: No trials were found that met the selection criteria.

Main results: No data exist on which to report.

Authors' conclusions: There is a need for well-designed controlled clinical trials to compare the efficacy and safety of surgical reversal of tubal sterilisation and IVF in restoring fertility in women seeking pregnancy following tubal sterilisation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Nil

Update of

References

Additional references

Chi 1994
    1. Chi IC, Jones DB. Incidence, risk factors, and prevention of poststerilization regret in women: an updated international review from an epidemiological perspective. Obstetric and Gynaecology Survey 1994;49(10):722‐32. - PubMed
Rouzi 1995
    1. Rouzi AA, Mackinnon M, McComb PF. Predictors of success of reversal of sterilization. Fertility and Sterility 1995;64(1):29‐36. - PubMed
Van Voorhis 2000
    1. Voorhis BJ. Comparison of tubal ligation reversal procedures. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;43(3):641‐9. - PubMed
Wilcox 1990
    1. Wilcox LS, Chu SY, Peterson HB. Characteristics of women who considered or obtained tubal reanastmosis: Results from a prospective study of tubal sterilization. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1990;75:661‐5. - PubMed
Witsenburg 2005
    1. Witsenburg C, Dieben S, Westerlaken L, et al. Cumulative live birth rates in cohorts of patients treated with in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection.. Fertility and Sterility 2005;84(1):99‐107. - PubMed

Publication types