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
Meta-Analysis
. 2010 Jan 20;2010(1):CD002125.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002125.pub3.

Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation

Neil Johnson  1 , Sabine van Voorst, Martin C Sowter, Annika Strandell, Ben Willem J Mol
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation

Neil Johnson et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: Tubal disease, and particularly hydrosalpinx, has a detrimental effect on the outcome of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Performing a surgical intervention such as salpingectomy, tubal occlusion, aspiration of the hydrosalpinx fluid, or salpingostomy, prior to the IVF procedure in women with hydrosalpinges is thought improve the likelihood of successful outcome.

Objectives: To assess and compare the value of surgical treatments for tubal disease prior to IVF.

Search strategy: Trials were sought in the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHMED and in Conference proceedings and reference lists up until Ocober 28 2009. Researchers in the field were contacted to reveal unpublished studies.

Selection criteria: All trials comparing a surgical treatment for tubal disease with a control group generated by randomisation were considered for inclusion in the review.

Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The studied outcomes were live birth, ongoing pregnancy, viable-, clinical- and biochemical pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ovarian function and complications.

Main results: Five randomised controlled trials involving 646 women were included in this review. Four studies assessed salpingectomy versus no treatment, two of which also included a tubal occlusion arm, and one trial assessed aspiration versus no treatment. No trials reported on the primary outcome: live birth. The odds of ongoing pregnancy (Peto OR 2.14, 95%CI 1.23 to 3.73) and of clinical pregnancy (Peto OR 2.31, 95%CI 1.48 to 3.62) however were increased with laparoscopic salpingectomy for hydrosalpinges prior to IVF. Laparoscopic occlusion of the fallopian tube versus no intervention did not increase the odds of ongoing pregnancy significantly (Peto OR 7.24, 95%CI 0.87 to 59.57) but the odds of clinical pregnancy (Peto OR 4.66, 95%CI 2.47 to 10.01) had sufficient power to show a significant increase. Comparison of tubal occlusion to salpingectomy did not show a significant advantage of either surgical procedure in terms of ongoing pregnancy (Peto OR: 1.65, 95%CI 0.74, 3.71) or clinical pregnancy (Peto OR 1.28, 95%CI 0,76 to 2.14). One RCT reported efficacy of ultrasound guided aspiration, however the odds of pregnancy did not show a significant increase in the odds of clinical pregnancy (Peto OR 1.97, 95%CI 0.62 to 6.29), and confidence intervals were wide. Throughout the different comparisons no significant differences were seen in adverse effects of surgical treatments.

Authors' conclusions: Surgical treatment should be considered for all women with hydrosalpinges prior to IVF treatment. Previous evidence supported only unilateral salpingectomy for a unilateral hydrosalpinx (bilateral salpingectomy for bilateral hydrosalpinges). This review now provides evidence that laparoscopic tubal occlusion is an alternative to laparoscopic salpingectomy in improving IVF pregnancy rates in women with hydrosalpinges. Further research is required to assess the value of aspiration of hydrosalpinges prior to or during IVF procedures and also the value of tubal restorative surgery as an alternative (or as a preliminary) to IVF.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Two of the authors (MS and AS) have performed clinical studies assessing the interventions studied in this review (Sowter 1997;Strandell 1999), the latter being one of the included RCTs in this review.

Neil Johnson works as a gynaecologist at Auckland City Hospital (a public hospital) in the National Women's Minimal Access Surgery and Endometriosis Service. NJ is also a private gynaecologist with groups called Endometriosis Auckland and Repromed Auckland. Within the last 3 years NJ has received financial support to attend conferences or to arrange research meetings from the following companies: Organon, Serono, Schering and Device Technologies.

Sabine van Voorst at the time was a medical student of the faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences of the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands. She is now a resident in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis in Delft, the Netherlands. She has no financial conflict of interest.

Annika Strandell is a gynaecologist at Kungälv Hospital, associate professor at the University of Gothenburg and employed at the regional center for Health Technology Assessment in Göteborg, Sweden. She was the principle investigator and co‐ordinator of the Scandinavian trial on salpingectomy for hydrosalpinges prior to IVF. She has no financial conflict of interest.

Figures

1
1
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2
2
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
3
3
Forest plot of comparison: Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment: Salpingectomy (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment. Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Pregnancy rate according to any definition, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate, Surgical complication rate.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment: Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment. Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate, Surgical complication rate.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment: Aspiration of hydro salpingeal fluid (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment. Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate, Surgical complication rate.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube: Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS Salpingectomy (all methods). Outcomes: Ongoing pregnancy rate, Clinical pregnancy rate, Ectopic pregnancy rate, Miscarriage rate.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 1 Ongoing pregnancy rate.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS No surgery on the fallopian tube (all types), Outcome 6 Surgical complication rate.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 1 Ongoing pregnancy rate.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Occlusion of the fallopian tube VERSUS no intervention on the fallopian tube, Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 1 Clinical pregnancy rate.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 2 Biochemical pregnancy rate.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.
3.6
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Aspiration of the hydrosalpinges versus non aspiration of hydrosalpinges, Outcome 6 Surgical complication rate.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 1 Ongoing pregnancy rate.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate ‐ any definition.
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 4 Ectopic pregnancy rate.
4.5
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment, Outcome 1 Salpingectomy (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment.
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment, Outcome 2 Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment.
5.3
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Surgical treatment (all types) VERSUS no surgical treatment, Outcome 3 Aspiration of hydro salpingeal fluid (all methods) VERSUS no surgical treatment.
6.1
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube (all types) VERSUS (any other) laparoscopic surgery on the fallopian tube, Outcome 1 Tubal occlusion (all methods) VERSUS Salpingectomy (all methods).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Dechaud 1998 {published data only}
    1. Dechaud H, Daures JP, Amal F, Humeau C, Hedon B. Does previous salpingectomy improve implantation and pregnancy rates in patients with severe tubal factor infertility who are undergoing in vitro fertilization? A pilot prospective randomized study. Fertility & Sterility 1998;69:1020‐5. - PubMed
    1. Dechaud H, Daures JP, Arnal F, Humeau C, Hedon B. Salpingectomy before undergoing IVF can increase implantation rates in severe tubal infertility patients: a prospective randomised study. Human Reproduction Abstracts of 13th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE. 1997; Vol. 12:23‐4.
Hammadieh 2008 {published data only}
    1. Hammadieh N, Afnan M, Sharif K, Evans J, Amso N. The effect of hydrosalpinx on IVF outcome: a prospective randomised controlled trial of vaginal ultrasound‐guided hydrosalpinx aspiration during egg collection. Fertility & Sterility 2003; Vol. 80 (Suppl. 3):S131‐132.
    1. Hammadieh N, Coomarasamy A, Bolarinde O, Papaioannou S, Afnan M, Sharif K. Ultrasound‐guided hydrosalpinx aspiration during oocyte collection improves pregnancy outcome in IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2008;23:1113‐7. - PubMed
Kontoravdis 2006 {published data only}
    1. Kontoravdis A, Makrakis E, Pantos K, Botsis D, Deligeoroglu E, Creatsas G. Proximal tubal occlusion and salpingectomy result in similar improvement in in vitro fertilization outcome in patients with hydrosalpinx. Fertility and Sterility December 2006;Vol 86:1642‐8. - PubMed
Moshin 2006 {published data only}
    1. Moshin V, Hotineanu A. Reproductive outcome of the proximal tubal occlusion prior to IVF in patients with hydrosalpinx. Human reproduction. June 2006; Vol. 21:i193‐i194.
Strandell 1999 {published data only}
    1. Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenstrom U, Thorburn J, Janson PO, Hamberger L. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: a prospective randomized multicentre trial in Scandinavia on salpingectomy prior to IVF. Human Reproduction 1999;14(11):2762‐9. - PubMed
    1. Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenstrom U, Thorburn J, Janson PO, Hamberger L. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: cumulative results after salpingectomy in a randomised controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2001;16:2403‐10. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Gelbaya 2006 {published data only}
    1. Gelbaya TA, Nardo LG, Fitzgerald CT, Horne G, Brison DR, Lieberman BA. Ovarian response to gonadotrophins after laparoscopic salpingectomy or the division of fallopian tubes for hydrosalpinges. Fertility and Sterility 2006;85(5):1464‐8. - PubMed
Goldstein 1998 {published data only}
    1. Goldstein DB, Sasaran LH, Stadtmauer L, Popa R. Selective salpingostomy‐salpingectomy (SSS) and medical treatment prior to IVF in patients with hydrosalpinx. Fertility & Sterility 1998;70(1):S320.
Hotineanu 2007 {published data only}
    1. Hotineanu 2007 Hotineanu AL, Moshin VN, Hotineanu AV, Croitor ME. The effect of proximal tubal ''clamping'' prior to the IVF in patients with distal tubal occlusion. Human Reproduction July 2007;22(Supplement 1; Abstracts of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology):i126.
Mardesic 1999 {published data only}
    1. Mardesic T, Muller P, Huttelová R, Zvárová J, Hulvert J, Voboril J, et al. Effect of salpingectomy on the results of IVF in women with tubal sterility‐‐prospective study. Ceska Gynekol. 2001;66(1):259‐64. - PubMed
    1. Mardesic T, Muller P, Voboril J, Hulvert J, Huttelova R, Becvarova V, et al. The influence of salpingectomy of hydrosalpinges visible on ultrasound on IVF results. A pilot prospective randomized study. Abstracts of 11th World Congress on In Vitro Fertilization and Human Reproductive Genetics. Sydney, Australia, 9‐14 May, 1999:156.
Zolghadri 2006 {published data only}
    1. Zolghadri J, Momtahan M, Alborzi S, Mohammadinejad A, Khosravi D. Pregnancy outcome in patients with early recurrent abortion following laparoscopic tubal corneal interruption of a fallopian tube with hydrosalpinx.. Fertility and Sterility July 2006;86(6):149‐51. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Hammadieh2008 {published data only}
    1. Hammadieh N, Coomarasamy A, Ola B, Papaioannou S, Afnan M, Sharif K. Ultrasound‐guided hydrosalpinx aspiration during oocyte collection improves pregnancy outcome in IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Human reproduction 2008;23(5):1113‐7. - PubMed
Mol 2008 {published data only}
    1. Mol F, Strandell A, Jurkovic D, Yalcinkaya T, Verhoeve HR, et al. The ESEP study: salpingostomy versus salpingectomy for tubal ectopic pregnancy; the impact on future fertility: a randomised controlled trial. BMC women's health 2008;8:11. - PMC - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

Darwish 2005,2006, 2007 {published data only}
    1. Darwish A, Saman E. Hysteroscopic vs laparoscopic tubal occlusion of hydrosalpinges prior to IVF/ICSI. Human Reproduction 2006;21:i134.
    1. Darwish A, ElSaman E. Hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic tubal occlusion of hydrosalpinges prior to IVF/ICSI. Middle‐East Fertility Society Journal 2005;10(Supplement 12th Annual Meeting of the Middle East Fertility Society 23‐26November):i126.
    1. Darwish AM, Saman AM. Is there a role for hysteroscopic tubal occlusion of functionless hydrosalpinges prior to IVF/IVCSI in modern practice?. Acta Obstetrica et Gynaecologica 2007;86:1484‐9. - PubMed

Additional references

Aboulghar 1990
    1. Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Sattar MA, Awad MM, Amin Y. Transvaginal ultrasonic needle guided aspiration of pelvic inflammatory masses before ovulation induction for in vitro fertilization. Fertility & Sterility 1990;53:311. - PubMed
Akman 1996
    1. Akman MA, Garcia JE, Damewood MD, Watts LD, Katz E. Hydrosalpinx affects the implantation of previously cryopreserved embryos. Human Reproduction 1996;11:1013‐4. - PubMed
Andersen 1994
    1. Andersen A, Yue Z, Meng F, Petersen K. Low implantation rate after in‐vitro fertilisation in patients with hydrosalpinges diagnosed by ultrasonography. Human Reproduction 1994;9:1935‐8. - PubMed
Andersen 1996
    1. Andersen AN, Lindhard A, Loft A, Ziebe S, Andersen CY. The infertile patient with hydrosalpinges: IVF with or without salpingectomy?. Human Reproduction 1996;11:2081‐4. - PubMed
Bloechle 1997
    1. Bloechle M, Schreiner Th, Lisse K. Recurrence of hydrosalpinges after transvaginal aspiration of tubal fluid in an IVF cycle with development of a serometra. Human Reproduction 1997;12:703‐5. - PubMed
Camus 1999
    1. Camus E, Poncelet C, Goffinet F, Wainer B, Merlet F, Nisand I, et al. Pregnancy rates after in‐vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta‐analysis of published comparative studies. Human Reproduction May 1999;14(5):1243‐9. - PubMed
Clarke 2008
    1. JF Clarke, M van Rummste, C Farquhar, N Johnson, BW Mol, P Herbison. Measuring outcomes in fertility trials ‐ can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates?. Submitted for publication. - PubMed
Csemiczky 1996
    1. Csemiczky G, Landgren BM, Fried G, Wramsby H. High tubal damage grade is associated with low pregnancy rate in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment. Human Reproduction 1996;11:2438‐40. - PubMed
Dar 2000
    1. Dar P, Sachs GS, Strassburger D, et al. Ovarian function before and after salpingectomy in artificial reproductive technology patients. Human Reproduction 2000;15:142‐4. - PubMed
Dechaud 2004
    1. Dechaud H, Reyftmann L, Faidherbe, Hamamah S, Hedon B. Evidence based reproductive surgery: tubal infertility. International congress series 2004;1266:96‐106.
Dias 2006
    1. Dias S, McNamee R, Vail A. Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trial in subfertility. Human Reproduction 2006;21:2617‐27. - PubMed
Dickens 1995
    1. Dickens CJ, Maguiness SD, Comer MT, Palmer S, Rutherford AJ, Leese HJ. Human tubal fluid: formation and composition during vascular perfusion of the Fallopian tube. Human Reproduction 1995;10:505‐8. - PubMed
Ducarme 2006
    1. Ducarme G, Uzan M, Hugues JN, Cedrin‐Durnerin I, Ponselet C. Management of hydrosalpinx before or during in vitro fertilization ‐embryo transfer: a national postal survey in France. Fertility and Sterility 2006;86(4):1013‐16. - PubMed
Englert 1987
    1. Englert Y, Vekemans M, Lejeune B, Rysselberge M, Puissant F, Degueldre M, et al. Higher pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in cases with sperm defects. Fertility & Sterility 1987;48:254‐7. - PubMed
Evers 2002
    1. Evers JL. Female subfertility. The Lancet 2002;360(9327):151‐9. - PubMed
Eytan 2001
    1. Eytan O, Azem F, Gull I, Wolman I, Elad D, Jaffa AJ. The mechanism of hydrosalpinx in embryo implantation. Human Reproduction 2001;12:2662‐7. - PubMed
Fleming 1996
    1. Fleming C, Hull MGR. Impaired implantation after in vitro fertilisation treatment associated with hydrosalpinx. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1996;103:268‐72. - PubMed
Freeman 1996
    1. Freeman MR, Whitworth CM, Hill GA. Hydrosalpinx reduces in vitro fertilisation / embryo transfer rates and in vitro blastocyst development. 52nd Annual Meeting of the American Fertility Society. 1996:S211.
Hammadieh 2004
    1. Hammadieh N, Afnan M, Evans J, Sharif K, Amso N, Olufowobi O. A postal survey of hydrosalpinx management prior to IVF in the United Kingdom. Human Reproduction 2004;19(4):1009‐12. - PubMed
Herman 1991
    1. Herman A, Ron‐el R, Golan A, Soffer Y, Bukovsky Y, Caspi E. The dilemma of the optimal surgical procedure occurring in ectopic pregnancies in in‐vitro fertilisation. Human Reproduction 1991;6:1167‐9. - PubMed
Higgins 2008
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version. 5.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, February 2008. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hsu 2005
    1. Hsu CC, Yang TT, Hsu CT. Ovarian pregnancy resulting from cornual fistulae in a woman who had undergone bilateral salpingectomy. Fertility & Sterility 2005;83(1):205‐7. - PubMed
Inovay 1999
    1. Inovay J, Marton T, Urbancsek J, et al. Spontaneous bilateral cornual dehiscence early in the second trimester after bilateral laparoscopic salpingectomy and in vitro fertilization. Human Reproduction 1999;14:2471‐3. - PubMed
Johnson 2002
    1. Johnson NP, Merrilees M, Sadler L. IVF and tubal pathology ‐ not all bad news. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2002;42:285‐8. - PubMed
Johnson2002
    1. Johnson NP, Norris J. An Australasian survey of the management of hydrosalpinges in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002;42(3):271‐6. - PubMed
Katz 1996
    1. Katz E, Akman MA, Damewood MD, Garcia JE. Deleterious effect of the presence of hydrosalpinx on implantation and pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilisation. Fertility & Sterility 1996;66:122‐5. - PubMed
Kerin 2005
    1. Kerin J, Swann N, Scroggs S, Rosenfield R. Hysteroscopic placement of Essure micro‐inserts to obstruct hydrosalpinges followed by IVF and successful pregnancy outcomes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2005;45(s(1)):A11.
La Combe 2003
    1. LaCombe. Adnexal torsion in a patient with hydrosalpinx who underwent tubal occlusion before in vitro fertilization. Fertility & Sterility 2003;79(2):437‐8. - PubMed
Lass 1998
    1. Lass A, Ellenbogen A, Croucher C, et al. Effect of salpingectomy on ovarian response to superovulation in an in vitro fertilization‐embryo transfer program. Fertility & Sterility 1998;70:1035‐8. - PubMed
Mansour 1991
    1. Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA, Serrour GI, Riad R. Fluid accumulation of the uterine cavity before embryo transfer: a possible hindrance for implantation. Journal of In vitro fertilisation and Embryo Transfer 1991;8:157‐9. - PubMed
Meyer 1997
    1. Meyer WR, Castelbaum AJ, Somkuti S, Sagoskin AW, Doyle M, Harris JE, et al. Hydrosalpinges adversely affect markers of endometrial receptivity. Human Reproduction 1997;12:1393‐8. - PubMed
Mukherjee 1996
    1. Mukhurjee T, Copperman AB, McCaffrey C. Hydrosalpinx fluid has embryotoxic effects on murine embryogenesis: a case for prophylactic salpingectomy. Fertility & Sterility 1996;66:851‐3. - PubMed
Murray 1998
    1. Murray DL, Sagoskin AW, Widra EA, Levy MJ. The adverse effect of hydrosalpinges on in vitro fertilisation pregnancy rates and the benefit of surgical correction. Fertility & Sterility 1998;69(1):619‐26. - PubMed
Poe‐Ziegler 1995
    1. Poe‐Ziegler R, Shelton KE, Toner JP. Salpingectomy(ies) improves the pregnancy rate after IVF in patients with unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinx. Journal of Assisted Reproduction & Genetics 1995;12:S65.
Puttemans 1996
    1. Puttemans PJ, Brosens IA. Salpingectomy improves in vitro fertilisation outcome in patients with a hydrosalpinx: blind victimisation of the fallopian tube?. Human Reproduction 1996;11:2079‐81. - PubMed
Rosenfield 2005
    1. Rosenfield RB, Stones RE, Coates A, Matteri RK, Hesla JS. Proximal occlusion of hydrosalpinx by hysteroscopic placement of microinsert before in vitro fertilization embryo transfer. Fertility & Sterility 2005;83(5):1547. - PubMed
Russel 1991
    1. Russel JB, Rodriguez Z, Komins JI. The use of transvaginal ultrasound to aspirate bilateral hydrosalpinges prior to in vitro fertilisation: a case report. Journal of In vitro fertilisation and Embryo Transfer 1991;8(4):213‐5. - PubMed
Savic 1999
    1. Savic B, Milacic D, Peako N. Hydrosalpingeal fluid aspiration during oocyte retrieval has beneficial effect on outcome of in‐vitro fertilization‐embryo transfer. Abstracts of the 15th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. 1999:310.
Shahara 1996
    1. Shahara FI, Scott RT Jr, Marut EL, Queenan JT Jr. In‐vitro fertilisation outcome in women with hydrosalpinx. Human Reproduction 1996;11:526‐30. - PubMed
Sharara 1999
    1. Sharara FI. The role of hydrosalpinx in IVF: simply mechanical?. Human Reproduction 1999;14:577‐8. - PubMed
Shariff 1994
    1. Shariff K, Kaufmann S, Sharma V. Heterotopic pregnancy obtained after In‐vitro fertilization and embryo transfer following bilateral total salpingectomy: case report. Human Reproduction 1994;9:1966‐7. - PubMed
Shelton 1996
    1. Shelton KE, Butier L, Toner JP. Salpingectomy improves the pregnancy rate in in vitro fertilisation patients with hydrosalpinx. Human Reproduction 1996;11:523‐5. - PubMed
Sowter 1997
    1. Sowter MC, Akande VA, Williams JA, Hull MG. Is the outcome of in‐vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer treatment improved by spontaneous or surgical drainage of a hydrosalpinx?. Human Reproduction 1997;12:2147‐50. - PubMed
Stadtmauer 2000
    1. Stadtmauer LA, Riehl RM, Toma SK, Talbert LM. Cauterization of hydrosalpinges before in vitro fertilization is an effective surgical treatment associated with improved pregnancy rates. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2000;183:367‐71. - PubMed
Steptoe 1978
    1. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978;2:366. - PubMed
Strandell 1994
    1. Strandell A, Waldenstrom U, Nilsson L, Hamberger L. Hydrosalpinx reduces in‐vitro fertilisation / embryo transfer pregnancy rates. Human Reproduction 1994;9:861‐3. - PubMed
Strandell 2001
    1. Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenstrom U, et al. Salpingectomy prior to IVF does not impair the ovarian response. Human Reproduction 2001;16:1135‐9. - PubMed
Strandell 2002
    1. Strandell A, Lindhard A. Why does hydrosalpinx reduce fertility; the importance of hydro salpingeal fluid. Human Reproduction 2002;17(5):1141‐5. - PubMed
Surrey 2001
    1. Surrey AS, Schoolcraft WB. Laparoscopic management of hydrosalpinges before in vitro fertilization embryo transfer: salpingectomy versus proximal tubal occlusion. Fertility & Sterility March 2001;75(3):612‐7. - PubMed
Tay 1997
    1. Tay JI, Rutherford AJ, Killick SR, Maguiness SD, Partridge RJ, Leese HJ. Human tubal fluid: production, nutrient composition and response to adrenergic agents. Human Reproduction 1998;70:492‐9. - PubMed
Taylor 2001
    1. Taylor RC, Berkowitz J, McComb PF. Role of laparoscopic salpingostomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinx. Fertility and Sterilty 2001;75:594‐600. - PubMed
Van Voorhis 1998
    1. Voorhis BJ, Sparks AET, Syrop CH, Stovall DW. Ultrasound‐guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges is associated with improved pregnancy and implantation rates after in‐vitro fertilization cycles. Human Reproduction 1998;13:736‐9. - PubMed
Vandromme 1995
    1. Vandromme J, Chasse E, Lejeune B, Rysselberge M, Delvigne A, Leroy F. Hydrosalpinges in in vitro fertilisation: an unfavourable prognostic feature. Human Reproduction 1995;10:576‐9. - PubMed
Vasquez 1995
    1. Vasquez G, Boeckx K, Brosens IA. Prospective study of tubal mucosal lesions and fertility in hydrosalpinges. Human Reproduction 1995;10:1075‐8. - PubMed
Zeyneloglu 1998
    1. Zeyneloglu HB, Arici A, Olive DL. Adverse effects of hydrosalpinx on pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization ‐ embryo transfer. Fertility & Sterility 1998;70:492‐9. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources