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
. 2017 Jan 23;1(1):CD006415.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006415.pub3.

Surgery for tubal infertility

Su Jen Chua  1 , Valentine A Akande  2 , Ben Willem J Mol  3
Affiliations

Surgery for tubal infertility

Su Jen Chua et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Surgery remains an acceptable treatment modality for tubal infertility despite the rise in usage of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Estimated livebirth rates after surgery range from 9% for women with severe tubal disease to 69% for those with mild disease; however, the effectiveness of surgery has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments such as IVF and expectant management (no treatment). Livebirth rates have not been adequately assessed in relation to the severity of tubal damage. It is important to determine the effectiveness of surgery against other treatment options in women with tubal infertility because of concerns about adverse outcomes, intraoperative complications and costs associated with tubal surgery, as well as alternative treatments, mainly IVF.

Objectives: The aim of this review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with expectant management or IVF in improving the probability of livebirth in the context of tubal infertility (regardless of grade of severity).

Search methods: We searched the following databases in October 2016: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO; as well as clinical trials registries, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists of included trials and related systematic reviews.

Selection criteria: We considered only randomised controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion, with livebirth rate per participant as the primary outcome of interest.

Data collection and analysis: We planned that two review authors would independently assess trial eligibility and risk of bias and would extract study data. The primary review outcome was cumulative livebirth rate. Pregnancy rate and adverse outcomes, including miscarriage rate, rate of ectopic pregnancy and rate of procedure-related complications, were secondary outcomes. We planned to combine data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to assess statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and to assess the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

Main results: We identified no suitable randomised controlled trials.

Authors' conclusions: The effectiveness of tubal surgery relative to expectant management and IVF in terms of livebirth rates for women with tubal infertility remains unknown. Large trials with adequate power are warranted to establish the effectiveness of surgery in these women. Future trials should not only report livebirth rates per patient but should compare adverse effects and costs of treatment over a longer time. Factors that have a major effect on these outcomes, such as fertility treatment, female partner's age, duration of infertility and previous pregnancy history, should be considered. Researchers should report livebirth rates in relation to severity of tubal damage and different techniques used for tubal repair, including microsurgery and laparoscopic methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

BM has received payment for consultancy from biopharmaceutical company ObsEva Geneva. SC and VA have no interests to declare.

Figures

1
1
PRISMA study flow diagram.
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 excluded from this review

Zolghadri 2006 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    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 2006;86(1):149‐51. - PubMed

Additional references

Ahmad 2006
    1. Ahmad G, Watson A, Vandekerckhove P, Lilford R. Techniques for pelvic surgery in subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000221.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
AIHW 2012
    1. Macaldowie A, Wang YA, Chambers GM, Sullivan EA. Assisted Reproductive Technology in Australia and New Zealand 2010. Canberra: AIHW, 2012.
Akande 2004
    1. Akande VA, Cahill DJ, Wardle PG, Rutherford AJ, Jenkins JM. The predictive value of the 'Hull & Rutherford' classification for tubal damage. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2004;111:123‐41. - PubMed
ASRM 2015
    1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility 2015;103:e37‐43. - PubMed
Benadiva 1995
    1. Benadiva CA, Kligman I, Davis O, Rozenwaks Z. In vitro fertilisation versus tubal surgery: is pelvic reconstructive surgery obsolete?. Fertility and Sterility 1995;64:1051‐61. - 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 1999;14(5):1243‐49. - PubMed
Chandra 2014
    1. Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. Infertility service use in the United States: data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 1982‐2010. National Health Statistics Report 2014;73:1‐21. - PubMed
Chu 2015
    1. Chu J, Harb HM, Gallos ID, Dhillon R, Al‐Rshoud FM, Robinson L, et al. Salpingostomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinx: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Human Reproduction 2015;30:1882‐95. - PubMed
Cohlen 2002
    1. Cohlen BJ, Hughes E, Velde ER. Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (Protocol for a Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003854] - DOI - PubMed
Collins 1983
    1. Collins JA, Wrixon W, Janes LB, Wilson EH. Treatment‐independent pregnancy among infertile couples. New England Journal of Medicine 1983;309:1201‐6. - PubMed
El‐Chaar 2009
    1. El‐Chaar D, Yang Q, Gao J, Bottomley J, Leader A, Wen SW, et al. Risk of birth defects increased in pregnancies conceived by assisted human reproduction. Fertility and Sterility 2009;92:1557‐61. - PubMed
Evers 1998
    1. Evers JLH, Haas HW, Land JA, Dumoulin JCM, Dunselman GAJ. Treatment‐independent pregnancy rate in patients with severe reproductive disorders. Human Reproduction 1998;13(5):1206‐9. - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2014 [Computer program]
    1. GRADE Working Group, McMaster University. GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 27 January 2016. Hamilton (ON): GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2014.
Harzing 2007
    1. Harzing, A‐W. Publish or perish. Research in international management. http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm. 2007 (accessed 24 November 2016).
HFEA 2015
    1. Human Fertilisation, Embryology Authority. Adverse incidents in fertility clinics: lessons to learn. www.HFEA.gov.uk. (accessed 11th July 2016) September 2015.
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2005
    1. Higgins J, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 4.2.5. May 2005. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. March 2011. London, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
Honore 1999
    1. Honore GM, Holden AE, Schenken RS. Pathophysiology and management of proximal tubal blockage. Fertility and Sterility 1999;71:785‐95. - PubMed
Johnson 2010
    1. Johnson N, Voorst S, Sowter MC, Strandell A, Mol BW. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002125.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Mosgaard 1996
    1. Mosgaard B, Hertz J, Steenstrup BR, Soorensen SS, Lindhard A, Anderson AN. Surgical management of tubal infertility: a regional study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1996;75(5):469‐74. - PubMed
NICE 2004
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Fertility: Assessment and Treatment for People With Fertility Problems. Clinical Guideline. London: RCOG Press, 2004. - PubMed
Ponomarev 2009
    1. Ponomarev VV, Zhuyko AA, Artyushkov VV, Bashirov EV, Vengerenko ME. Our experience in laparoscopic treatment of tubo‐peritoneal infertility. Gynecological Surgery 2009;6:S149‐50.
SART 2014
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2012 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2014.
Schippert 2012
    1. Schippert C, Soergel P, Staboulidou I, Bassler C, Gagalick S, Hillemanns P, et al. The risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reconstructive microsurgery and assisted reproductive technology procedures. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2012;285:863‐71. - PubMed
Serafini 1989
    1. Serafini P, Batzofin J. Diagnosis of female infertility. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1989;34:29‐40. - PubMed
Tran 2010
    1. Tran DK. Can open tubal microsurgery still be helpful in tubal infertility treatment?. Gynecological Surgery 2010;7:385‐400.
Wiedemann 1996
    1. Wiedemann R, Sterzik K, Gombisch V, Stuckensen J, Montag M. Beyond recanalizing proximal tubal occlusion: the argument for further diagnosis and classification. Human Reproduction 1996;11(5):986‐91. - PubMed
Wu 1988
    1. Wu CH, Gocial B. A pelvic scoring system for infertility surgery. International Journal of Fertility 1988;33:341‐6. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Pandian 2008
    1. Pandian Z, Akande VA, Harrild K, Bhattacharya S. Surgery for tubal infertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006415.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources