Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2018
  • Online publication date: November 2018

Chapter 5 - Surgical Management of Proximal and Distal Tubal Disease

1.Honore, GM, Holden, AE, Schenken, RS. Pathophysiology and management of proximal tubal blockage. Fertil Steril. 1999;5:785–95.
2.Practice Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Optimal evaluation of the infertile female. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S264–7.
3.Evers, JL, Land, JA, Mol, BW. Evidence-based medicine for diagnostic questions. Semin Reprod Med. 2003;21:915.
4.Dessole, S, Meloni, GB, Capobianco, G, Manzoni, MA, Ambrosini, G, Canalis, GC. A second hysterosalpingography reduces the use of selective technique for treatment of a proximal tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1037–9.
5.Mol, BW, Collins, JA, Burrows, EA, van der Veen, F, Bossuyt, PM. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in predicting fertility outcome. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1237–42.
6.Hamed, HO, Shahin, AY, Elsamman, AM. Hysterosalpingo-constrast sonography versus radiographic hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of tubal patency. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;105:215–17.
7.Ahinko-Hakamaa, KM, Huhtala, H, Tinkanen, H. Confirmation of tubal patency in hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography by transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy. Acta Obstet Gynecol. 2009;88:286–90.
8.Catenacci, M, Goldberg, JM. Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy. Semin Reprod Med. 2011;29:95100.
9.Den Hartog, JE, Morre, SA, Land, JA. Chlamydia trachomatis-associated tubal factor subfertility: immunogenetic aspects and serological screening. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12:719–30.
10.Johnson, N, Vanderkerchove, P, Lilford, R, et al. Tubal flushing for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; undefined: pp. CD003718.
11.Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Clinic summary report. Available at: www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0. Accessed September 15, 2015.
12.Chu, J, Harb, HM, Gallos, ID, et al. Salpingostomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinx: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1882–95.
13.Hansen, M, Bower, C, Milne, E, de Klerk, N, Kurinczuk, J. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects – a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:328–38.
14.Jackson, RA, Gibson, KA, Wu, YW, Croughan, MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:551–63.
15.El-Chaar, D, Yang, Q, Gao, J, et al. Risk of birth defects increased in pregnancies conceived by assisted human reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1557–61.
16.Letterie, GS, Sakas, EL. Histology of proximal tubal obstruction in cases of unsuccessful tubal canalization. Fertil Steril. 1991;56:831–5.
17.Pinto, AB, Hovsepian, DM, Wattanakumtornkul, S, Pilgram, TK. Pregnancy outcomes after fallopian tube recanalization: oil-based versus water-soluble contrast agents. J Vasc Interven Radiol. 2003;14:6974.
18.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:e3743.
19.The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;9:944–55.
20.Dun, EC, Nezhat, CH. Tubal factor infertility: diagnosis and management in the era of assisted reproductive technology. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2012;39:551–66.
21.Bontis, JN, Theodoridis, TD. Laparoscopic management of hydrosalpinx. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2006;092:199210.
22.Nackley, AC, Muasher, SJ. The significance of hydrosalpinx in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:373–84.
23.Milingos, SD, Kallipolitis, GK, Loutradis, DC, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of hydrosalpinx: factors affecting pregnancy rates. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2000;7:355–61.
24.Zeyneloglu, HB, Arici, A, Olive, D. Adverse effects of hydrosalpinx on pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization – embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998;70:492–9.
25.Camus, E, Poncelet, C, Goffinet, F, et al. Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1243–9.
26.Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with The Society of Reproductive Surgeons. Salpingectomy for hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S66–8.
27.Johnson, N, van Voorst, S, Sowter, MC, Strandell, A, Mol, BW. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;CD002125.
28.Kassabji, M, Sims, JA, Butlerb, L, Muasher, SJ. Reduced pregnancy outcome in patients with unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinx after in vitro fertilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1994;56:129–32.
29.Murray, DL, Sagoskin, AW, Widra, EA. The adverse effect of hydrosalpinges on in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates and the benefit of surgical correction. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:41–5.
30.Shelton, KE, Butler, L, Toner, JP, Oehninger, S, Muasher, SJ. Salpingectomy improves the pregnancy rate in in-vitro fertilization patients with hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:523–5.
31.Chan, CC, Ng, EH, Li, CF, Ho, PC. Impaired ovarian blood flow and reduced antral follicle count following laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2175–80.
32.Dar, P, Sachs, GS, Strassburger, D, Bukovsky, I, Arieli, S. Ovarian function before and after salpingectomy in artificial reproductive technology patients. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:142–4.
33.Strandell, A, Lindhard, A, Waldenstrom, U, Thorburn, J. Prophylactic salpingectomy does not impair the ovarian response in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1135–9.