Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Print publication year: 2018
  • Online publication date: February 2018

18 - Infertility-Related Surgeries

from Section 3 - Infertility



In vitro fertilization (IVF) is undeniably the most rapidly advancing and successful avenue for fertility treatment offered by reproductive endocrinologists. Strides in laboratory techniques, nuances in cycle induction protocols, and refinement of the transfer process have each contributed to a reproductive endocrinologist's (RE) reliance on IVF for the infertile couple. Historically, couples who might have been offered surgery to address tubal factor issues may find that those options are now not even raised. What is even more startling is that even with the major recent advances made in surgical equipment (e.g., laparoscopic magnification and optics, instrumentation, robotics), many couples are advised to pursue IVF in favor of a reparative infertility surgery.

A variety of contributing factors likely account for this decline in surgery. First, fellowship education has focused lately more on IVF training than surgery. As more experienced surgeons reduce their numbers of cases, the intraoperative learning by residents and fellows is necessarily reduced. A generation of residents and fellows therefore has graduated who may be less confident in their surgical skills; they thus defer to the more familiar IVF route. In fact, perusal of the 46 fellowship programs accredited in the United States for 2017 shows that the number of self-reported laparoscopy and laparotomy cases are dwarfed by the number of assisted reproductive cases offered by those institutions [1].

The second contributing factor is financial. Insurance reimbursement for surgical cases has declined and the attending surgeons may offer the more lucrative IVF procedure to meet their fixed office costs (i.e., laboratory and nursing personnel, office space) [2]. Finally, many couples may opt for IVF directly if their costs are out of pocket. IVF promises a greater and more immediate road to success compared to surgery, since if the surgery is unsuccessful, the couple must once again consider IVF.

Recent literature suggests that reproductive surgery is being viewed more as a means to facilitate the IVF that is sure to follow. It is clear that ovarian cysts, endometriomas, hydrosalpinges, and fibroids are all associated with reduced IVF pregnancy rates. But their removal is often inarguably directed to improve the IVF success.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
1. American Society of Reproductive Medicine and The Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Fertility. Directory of Fellowship Programs in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Available in 2017, 2016.
2. Connolly, MP, Hoorens, S, Chambers, GM. The cost and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Hum Reprod Update 2010; 16(6): 603–613.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted reproductive technology 2012 national summary report.
4. Kulkarni, G, Mohanty, NC, Mohanty, IR, Jadhav, P, Boricha, BG. Survey of reasons for discontinuation from in vitro fertilization among couples attending infertility clinic. J Hum Reprod Sci 2014; 7(4): 249–254.
5. Gameiro, S, Verhaak, CM, Kremer, JAM, Boivin, J. Why we should talk about compliance with assisted reproductive technologies (ART): a systematic review and meta-analysis of ART compliance rates. Hum Reprod Update 2013 Mar; 19(2): 124–135.
6. The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion, Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 44–46.
7. Cramer, SF, Patel, A. The frequency of uterine leiomyomas. Am J Clin Pathol 1990; 94: 435.
8. Downes, E, Sikirica, V, Gilabert-Estelles, J et al. The burden of uterine fibroids in five European countries, Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 152: 96.
9. Myomas and Reproductive Function, Practice Committee of American Society of Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with the Society of Reproductive Surgeons. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: s125–130.
10. FDA warns against using laparoscopic power morcellators to treat uterine fibroids. November 24, 2014.
11. FDA allows marketing of first-of-kind tissue containment system for use with certain laparoscopic power morcellators in select patients. April 7, 2016.
12. Gibbons, L, Belizan, JM, Lauer, JA, Betran, AP, Merialdi, M, Althabe, F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: e1–19.
13. Vervoort, AJ, Uittenbogaard, LB, Hehenkamp, WJ, Brolmann, HA, Huirne, JA. Why do niches develop in Cesarean scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 2015; 30(12): 2695–2702.
14. Jacobson, MT, Osias, J, Velasco, A, Charles, R, Nezhat, C. Laparoscopic repair of uteroperitoneal fistula. J S Laparoendsc Surg 2003; 7(4): 367–369.
15. Healy, MW, Schexnayder, NB, Connell, MT et al. Intrauterine adhesion prevention after hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 267–275.
16. Saccone, G, Perriera, L, Berghella, V. Prior uterine evacuation of pregnancy as independent risk factor for preterm birth: a systematic review and metaanalysis, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016 May; 572–591.
17. Goldberg, AB, Dean, G, Kang, MS, Youssof, S, Darney, PD. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early first-trimester abortion: a controlled study of complication rates, Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104: 101–107.
18. Bermejo, C, Ten, P Martinez, Cantarero, R, Diaz, D, Pedregosa, J Perez et al. Three dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 593–601.
19. Dabirashrafi, H, Bahadori, M, Mohammad, K, Alavi, M, Moghadami-Tabrizi, N, Zandinejad, K et al. Septate uterus: new idea on the histologic features of the septum in this abnormal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 105–107.
20. Practice Committee Opinion. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2016; 106 (3): 530–539.
21. Mueller, GC, Hussain, HK, Smith, YR, Quint, EH, Carlos, RC, Johnson, TD et al. Mullerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis, AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 1294–1302.
22. Maneschi, F, Zupi, E, Marconi, D, Valli, E, Romamanini, C, Mancuso, S. Hysteroscopically detected asymptomatic mullerian anomalies. Prevalence and reproductive implications, J Reprod Med 1995; 40: 684–688.
23. Dermir, B, Dilbaz, B, Karadag, B, Duraker, R, Akkurt, O, Kocak, M et al. Coexistence of endometriosis and uterine septum in patients with abortion or infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2011; 37: 1596–1600.
24. Tonguc, EA, Var, T, Batioglu, S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in patients with a uterine septum and otherwise unexplained infertility. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 113: 128–130.
25. Salim, R, Regan, L, Woelfer, B, Backos, M, Jurkovic, D. A comparative study of the morphology of congenital uterine anomalies in women with and without a history of recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 162–166.
26. Candiani, GB, Vercellini, P, Fedele, L, Carinelli, SG, Merlo, D, Arcaini, L. Repair of the uterine cavity after hysteroscopic septal incision, Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 991–994.
27. Berkkanoglu, M, Isikoglu, M, Arici, F, Ozgur, K. What is the best time to perform intracytoplasmic sperm injection/embryo transfer cycle after hysteroscopic surgery for an incomplete uterine septum? Fertil Steril 2008; 90: 2112–2115.
28. Rock, JA, Katayama, KP, Martin, EJ et al. Factors influencing the success of salpingostomy techniques for distal fimbrial obstruction, Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52: 591.
29. Johnson, N, Voorst, S van, Sowter, MC, Strandell, A, Moll, BW. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilization, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 (1); CD002125.
30. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Salpingectomy for hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: s66–69.
31. Ransom, MX, Garcia, AJ. Surgical management of cornual-isthmic tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril 1997; 68(5): 887–891.
32. The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a committee opinion, Fertil Steril 2015; 103(6): e37–e43.
33. Gomel, V. The place of reconstructive tubal surgery in the era of ART. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015; 31: 722–731.
34. Rouzi, AA, Mackinnon, M, McComb, PF. Predictors of success of reversal of sterilization, Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 29–36.
35. Yoon, TK, Sung, HR, Kang, HG, Lee, CN, Cha, KY. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril 1999; 72; 1121–1126.
36. Essure: summary of safety and effectiveness.
37. Monteith, CW, Berger, GS, Zerden, ML. Pregnancy success after hysteroscopic sterilization reversal, Obstet Gynecol 2014 Dec; 124(6): 1183–1189.
38. Galen, DI, Richter, KS. Essure multicenter off-label treatment for hydrosalpinx before in vitro fertilization. J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2011 May–Jun; 18(3): 338–342.
39. Wit, W de, Gowrising, CJ, Kuik, DJ, Lens, JW, Schats, R. Only hydrosalpinges visible on ultrasound are associated with reduced implantation and pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1696–1701.
40. Sagoskin, AW, Lessey, BA, Mottla, GL, Richter, KS, Chetkowski, RJ, Chang, AS et al. Salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of unilateral hydrosalpinx increases the potential for spontaneous pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 2634–2637.
41. Tiras, M Bulent, Noyan, V, Ozdemir, H, Guner, H, Yildiz, A, Yildirim, M. The changes in ovarian hormone levels and ovarian artery blood flow rate after laparoscopic tubal ligation, Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 99: 219–221.
42. Kerin, JF, Munday, D, Ritossa, M, Rosen, D. Tissue encapsulation of the proximal Essure mirco-insert from the uterine cavity following hysteroscopic sterilization. J Min Invas Gynecol 2007; 14: 202–204.
43. Wiesenfeld, HC, Hillier, SL, Meyn, L et al. Mycoplasma genitalium- is it a pathogen in acute pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)? STI & AIDS World Congress 2013 (Joint Meeting of the 20th ISSTDR and 14th IUSTI Meeting); July 14–27, 2013; Vienna, Austria.
44. Gaitan, H, Angel, E, Diaz, R et al. Accuracy of five different diagnostic techniques in mild-to-moderate pelvic inflammatory disease, Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2002; 10: 171–180.
45. Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID).
46. Peipert, JF, Ness, RB, Blume, J et al. Clinical predictors of endometritis in women with symptoms and signs of pelvic inflammatory disease, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184: 856–864.
47. Sweet, RL. Treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2011; 561909
48. Smith, KJ, Ness, RB, Wiesenfeld, HC et al. Cost-effectiveness of alternative outpatient pelvic inflammatory disease treatment strategies, Sex Transm Dis 2007; 34: 960–966.
49. Soper, DE. Surgical considerations in the diagnosis and treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease. Surg Clin North Am 1991; 71(5): 947–962.
50. Ginsburg, DS, Stern, JL, Hamod, KA et al. Tubo-ovarian abscess: a retrospective review, Am J Ob stet Gynecol 1980; 138: 1055.
51. Epstein, AM, Boutselis, JG, Ullery, JC. Surgical indications and treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease, Am J Surg 1962; 104(4): 555–559.
52. Tulandi, T, Murray, C, Guralnick, M. Adhesion formation and reproductive outcome after myomectomy and second-look laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 213–215.
53. Levrant, SG, Bieber, EJ, Barnes, RB. Anterior abdominal wall adhesions after laparotomy or laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1997; 4: 353–356.
54. Rappaport, WD, Holcomb, M, Valente, J, Chvapil, M. Antibiotic irrigation and the formation of intraabdominal adhesions. Am J Surg 1989; 44: 115–136.
55. Wiseman, DM, Trout, JR, Diamond, MP. The rates of adhesion development and the effects of crystalloid solutions on the adhesion development in pelvic surgery. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 702–711.
56. Mais, V, Ajossa, S, Piras, B, Guerriero, S, Marongiu, D, Melis, GB. Prevention of de novo adhesion formation after laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an oxidized regenerated cellulose absorbable barrier, Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 3133–3135.
57. Pathogenesis, consequences, and control of peritoneal adhesions in gynecologic surgeons. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Reproductive Surgeons Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 21–26.