4.3 Article

Hydrosalpinx and infertility: what about conservative surgical management?

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.07.004

Keywords

Hydrosalpinx; Neosalpingostomy; Salpingectomy; IVF; Infertility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess and validate a management protocol for infertile patients affected by at least one hydrosalpinx. Study design: Eighty-one consecutive infertile normo-ovulatory patients with uni or bilateral hydrosalpinx planed to be surgically managed were included in the protocol from November 2003 to May 2007. During laparoscopy, a systematic evaluation of the tubes was firstly conducted and the local management protocol based on validated tubal prognostic scores was applied. Surgery for hydrosalpinx was either conservative by neosalpingostomy or radical by salpingectomy. The primary end-point was the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate. Results: 115 hydrosalpinges out of 153 present tubes were confirmed during laparoscopy. Neosalpingostomy was possible in 35 patients featuring 50 hydrosalpinges (43.2% and 43.5%, respectively). Salpingectomy was necessary for the others (46 patients representing 65 hydrosalpinges). The mean follow-up period was 31.8 +/- 12.4 months. The overall cumulative pregnancy rate was 61% per couple who completed the protocol (33/54 patients). The cumulative pregnancy rate was 50% after IVF in patients who underwent bilateral salpingectomy. Among patients with at least one functional tube, the overall cumulative pregnancy rate was 633%, with a spontaneous pregnancy rate of 30.4%. Conclusion: Hydrosalpinx management can be conservative with a tubal conservative of 43.5% and fair chances for spontaneous conception. An integrated management of hydrosalpinx including ART actually leads to a cumulative pregnancy rate of 61% per patient. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available