The management of hydrosalpinges: Tubal surgery or salpingectomy?

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 323-328

  Sabatini, Luca ^a   Davis, Colin ^a  

^a ST BARTHOLOMEW S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Hydrosalpinge; Hydrosalpinx; Salpingectomy; Treatment; Tubal surgery

Indexed keywords

FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; HYDROSALPINX; INFERTILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SALPINGECTOMY; UTERINE TUBE SURGERY;

EID: 22944432819     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.gco.0000175346.87813.75     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. Wheeler JE. Diseases of the fallopian tube. In: Kurman RJ, editor. Blaustein's pathology of the female genital tract. 5th ed. New York: Springer; 2002. pp. 529-561.
2. Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI. Controversies in the modern management of hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod Update 1998; 4:882-890.
3. Farber M, Mitchell GW Jr. Bicornuate uterus and partial atresia of the fallopian tube. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 134:881-884.
4. Ajonuma LC, Ng EH, Chan HC. New insights into the mechanisms underlying hydrosalpinx fluid formation and its adverse effect on IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8:255-264.
5. Hull MG, Glazener CM, Kelly NJ, et al. Population study of causes, treatment, and outcome of infertility. BMJ 1985; 291:1693-1697.
6. Mansour R, Aboulghar M, Serour GI. Controversies in the surgical management of hydrosalpinx. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 12:297-301.
7. Zeyneloglu HB, Arici A, Olive DL. Adverse effects of hydrosalpinx on pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1998; 70:492-499.
8. Cohen MA, Lindheim SR, Sauer MV. Hydrosalpinges adversely affect implantation in donor oocyte cycles. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:1087-1089.
9. Strandell A, Waldenstrom U, Nilsson L, Hamberger L. Hydrosalpinx reduces in-vitro fertilization/embryo transfer pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod 1994; 9:861-863.
10. Watermeyer SR, Bhal K. Chronic vaginal discharge secondary to a hydrosalpinx. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 22:324.
11. Atri M, Tran CN, Bret PM, et al. Accuracy of endovaginal sonography for the detection of fallopian tube blockage. J Ultrasound Med 1994; 13:429-434.
12. Dietrich M, Suren A, Hinney B. Evaluation of tubal patency by hysterocontrast sonography (HyCoSy, Echovist) and its correlation with laparoscopic findings. J Clin Ultrasound 1996; 24:523-527.
13. Swart P, Mol B, van der Veen F, et al. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:486-491.
14. Kodaman PH, Arici A, Seli E. Evidence-based diagnosis and management of tubal factor infertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2004; 16:221-229. A comprehensive review of diagnostic methods for tubal infertility.
15. Zeyneloglu HB. Hydrosalpinx and assisted reproduction: options and rationale for treatment. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 13:281-286.
16. Mage G, Pouly JL, de Joliniere JB, et al. A preoperative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates after distal tubal microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1986; 46:807-810.
17. Brosens I, Boeckx W, Delattin P, et al. Salpingoscopy: a new pre-operative diagnostic tool in tubal infertility. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94:768-773.
18. Marana R, Muscatello P, Muzii L, et al. Perlaparoscopic salpingoscopy in the evaluation of the tubal factor in infertile women. Int J Fertil 1990; 35:211-214.
19. Sawada T, Tsukada K, Satoh M, Kawakami S. Correlation between salpingoscopic score and subsequent pregnancy outcome in patients with tubal infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 1997; 14:562-565.
20. Puttemans PJ, De Bruyne F, Heylen SM. A decade of salpingoscopy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998; 81:197-206.
21. Puttemans P, Brosens I, Delattin P, et al. Salpingoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod 1987; 2:535-540.
22. Marana R, Catalano GF, Muzii L, et al. The prognostic role of salpingoscopy in laparoscopic tubal surgery. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:2991-2995.
23. Vasquez G, Boeckx W, Brosens I. No correlation between peritubal and mucosal adhesions in hydrosalpinges. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:1032-1033.
24. Vasquez G, Boeckx W, Brosens I. Prospective study of tubal mucosal lesions and fertility in hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:1075-1078.
25. Taylor RC, Berkowitz J, McComb PF. Role of laparoscopic salpingostomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinx. Fertil Steril 2001; 75:594-600.
26. Puttemans PJ, Brosens IA. Salpingectomy improves in-vitro fertilization outcome in patients with a hydrosalpinx: blind victimization of the fallopian tube? Hum Reprod 1996; 11:2079-2081.
27. Heylen SM, Brosens IA, Puttemans PJ. Clinical value and cumulative pregnancy rates following rigid salpingoscopy during laparoscopy for infertility. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:2913-2916.
28. Dechaud H, Daures JP, Hedon B. Prospective evaluation of falloposcopy. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:1815-1818.
29. Rock JA, Katayama P, Martin EJ, et al. Factors influencing the success of salpingostomy techniques for distal fimbrial obstruction. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52:591-596.
30. Boer-Meisel ME, te Velde ER, Habbema JD, Kardaun JW. Predicting the pregnancy outcome in patients treated for hydrosalpinx: a prospective study. Fertil Steril 1986; 45:23-29.
31. Kerin JF, Williams DB, San Roman GA, et al. Falloposcopic classification and treatment of fallopian tube lumen disease. Fertil Steril 1992; 57:731-741.
32. 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; 49:944-955.
33. Rutherford AJ, Jenkins JM. Hull and Rutherford classification of infertility. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2002; 5(1 Suppl):S41-S45.
34. Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Morice P, et al. Laparoscopic salpingostomy: fertility results according to the tubal mucosal appearance. Hum Reprod 1994; 9:334-339.
35. Palmer R. Salpingostomy: a critical study of 396 personal cases operated upon without polythene tubing. Proc R Soc Med 1960; 53:357-359.
36. De Cherney AH. Tubal disease: surgery and in vitro fertilization. In: Principles and practice of clinical gynaecology. 2nd ed. Churchhill Livingstone: London; 1990. pp. 445-457.
37. Verhoeven HC, Berry H, Frantzen C, Schlosser HW. Surgical treatment for distal tubal occlusion: a review of 167 cases. J Reprod Med 1983; 28:293-304.
38. Hull MG, Fleming CF. Tubal surgery versus assisted reproduction: assessing their role in infertility therapy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1995; 7:160-167.
39. Lavy G, Diamond MP, DeCherney AH. Ectopic pregnancy: its relationship to tubal reconstructive surgery. Fertil Steril 1987; 47:543-556.
40. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Reimplantation of a human embryo with subsequent tubal pregnancy. Lancet 1976; 1:880-882.
41. Benadiva CA, Kligman I, Davis O, Rosenwaks Z. In vitro fertilization versus tubal surgery: is pelvic reconstructive surgery obsolete? Fertil Steril 1995; 64:1051-1061.
42. Gocial B. Primary therapy for tubal disease: surgery versus IVF. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1995; 40:297-302.
43. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Salpingectomy for hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 (Suppl 1):S117-S119.
44. Fleming C, Hull MG. Impaired implantation after in vitro fertilisation treatment associated with hydrosalpinx. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103:268-272.
45. Blazar AS, Hogan JW, Seifer DB, et al. The impact of hydrosalpinx on successful pregnancy in tubal factor infertility treated by in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1997; 67:517-520.
46. Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA, Serour GI, Riad R. Fluid accumulation of the uterine cavity before embryo transfer: a possible hindrance for implantation. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1991; 8:157-159.
47. Vandromme J, Chasse E, Lejeune B, et al. Hydrosalpinges in in-vitro fertilization: an unfavourable prognostic feature. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:576-579.
48. Andersen AN, Yue Z, Meng FJ, Petersen K. Low implantation rate after in-vitro fertilization in patients with hydrosalpinges diagnosed by ultrasonography. Hum Reprod 1994; 9:1935-1938.
49. Akman MA, Garcia JE, Damewood MD, et al. Hydrosalpinx affects the implantation of previously cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:1013-1014.
50. Katz E, Akman MA, Damewood MD, Garcia JE. Deleterious effect of the presence of hydrosalpinx on implantation and pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1996; 66:122-125.
51. Van Voorhis BJ, Sparks AE, Syrop CH, Stovall DW. Ultrasound-guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges is associated with improved pregnancy and implantation rates after in-vitro fertilization cycles. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:736-739.
52. 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: 1243-1249.
53. Strandell A, Lindhard A. Why does hydrosalpinx reduce fertility? The importance of hydrosalpinx fluid. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:1141-1145.
54. de Vantery Arrighi C, Lucas H, El-Mowafi D, et al. Effects of human hydrosalpinx fluid on in-vitro murine fertilization. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 676-682.
55. Murray CA, Clarke HJ, Tulandi T, Tan SL. Inhibitory effect of human hydrosalpingeal fluid on mouse preimplantation embryonic development is significantly reduced by the addition of lactate. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:2504-2507.
56. Rawe VJ, Liu J, Shaffer S, et al. Effect of human hydrosalpinx fluid on murine embryo development and implantation. Fertil Steril 1997; 68:668-670.
57. Bildirici I, Bukulmez O, Ensari A, et al. A prospective evaluation of the effect of salpingectomy on endometrial receptivity in cases of women with communicating hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2422-2426.
58. Meyer WR, Castelbaum AJ, Somkuti S, et al. Hydrosalpinges adversely affect markers of endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1393-1398.
59. Eytan O, Azem F, Gull I, et al. The mechanism of hydrosalpinx in embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2662-2667.
60. Strandell A. How to treat hydrosalpinges: IVF as the treatment of choice. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 4(Suppl 3):37-39.
61. Johnson NP, Mak W, Sowter MC. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (3): CD002125. This metaanalysis included three randomized controlled trials on the effect of salpingectomy prior to IVF in women with hydrosalpinges. A total of 295 women were included. It suggested that eight women would need to have a salpingectomy to gain an additional live birth.
62. Dechaud H, Daures JP, Arnal F, et al. 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. Fertil Steril 1998; 69:1020-1025.
63. Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenstrom U, et al. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: a prospective, randomized multicentre trial in Scandinavia on salpingectomy prior to IVF. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:2762-2769.
64. Strandell A, Lindhard A. Hydrosalpinx and ART: salpingectomy prior to IVF can be recommended to a well-defined subgroup of patients. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:2072-2074.
65. de Wit W, Gowrising CJ, Kuik DJ, et al. Only hydrosalpinges visible on ultrasound are associated with reduced implantation and pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:1696-1701.
66. Hammadieh N, Afnan M, Evans J, et al. A postal survey of hydrosalpinx management prior to IVF in the United Kingdom. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:1009-1012. This article describes the management of hydrosalpinges in most of the UK reproductive medicine centres.
67. Choe J, Check JH. Salpingectomy for unilateral hydrosalpinx may improve in vivo fecundity. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1999; 48:285-287.
68. McComb PF, Taylor RC. Pregnancy outcome after unilateral salpingostomy with a contralateral patent oviduct. Fertil Steril 2001; 76:1278-1279.
69. Sagoskin AW, Lessey BA, Mottla GL, et al. Salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of unilateral hydrosalpinx increases the potential for spontaneous pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:2634-2637.
70. Gomel V. Microsurgery in female infertility. Boston, MA: Little Brown; 1983. pp. 225-244.
71. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Evidence-based clinical guidelines: the management of infertility in secondary care. London: RCOG Press; 1998.
72. De Bruyne F, Puttemans P, Boeckx W, Brosens I. The clinical value of salpingoscopy in tubal infertility. Fertil Steril 1989; 51:339-340.
73. Schlaff WD, Hassiakos DK, Damewood MD, Rock JA. Neosalpingostomy for distal tubal obstruction: prognostic factors and impact of surgical technique. Fertil Steril 1990; 54:984-990.
74. Audebert AJ, Pouly JL, Von Theobald P. Laparoscopic fimbrioplasty: an evaluation of 35 cases. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:1496-1499.
75. Dunphy BC, Woodhead S, Platt H, et al. Outcome study using an administrative database: terminal salpingostomy, physician case load and live birth rates. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:77-80.
76. Kitchin J III, Nunley WC Jr, Bateman BG. Surgical management of distal tubal occlusion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155:524-531.
77. Watson A, Vandekerckhove P, Lilford R. Techniques for pelvic surgery in subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2):CD000221.
78. Wright VC, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance: United States, 2001. MMWR Surveill Summ 2004; 53:1-20.
79. Sacks G, Trew G. Reconstruction, destruction and IVF: dilemmas in the art of tubal surgery. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 111:1174-1181. An excellent and comprehensive review on tubal surgery. It outlines diagnosis and surgical management in relation to site and severity of tubal disease.
80. Puttemans P, Campo R, Gordts S, Brosens I. Hydrosalpinx and ART: hydrosalpinx - functional surgery or salpingectomy? Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1427-1430.
81. Watrelot A, Hamilton J, Grudzinskas JG. Advances in the assessment of the uterus and fallopian tube function. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 17:187-209.
82. Dechaud H. Hydrosalpinx and ART: hydrosalpinges suitable for salpingectomy before IVF. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:2464-2465.
83. Lass A, Ellenbogen A, Croucher C, et al. Effect of salpingectomy on ovarian response to superovulation in an in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer program. Fertil Steril 1998; 70:1035-1038.
84. 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; 18:2175-2180.
85. Tal J, Paltieli Y, Korobotchka R, et al. Ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation in repeated IVF cycles after unilateral salpingectomy. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002; 19:451-455.
86. Dar P, Sachs GS, Strassburger D, et al. Ovarian function before and after salpingectomy in artificial reproductive technology patients. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:142-144.
87. Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenstrom U, Thorburn J. Prophylactic salpingectomy does not impair the ovarian response in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:1135-1139.
88. 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. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183:367-371.
89. Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Laparoscopic management of hydrosalpinges before in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: salpingectomy versus proximal tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril 2001; 75:612-617.
90. Sowter MC, Akande VA, Williams JA, Hull MG. Is the outcome of in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer treatment improved by spontaneous or surgical drainage of a hydrosalpinx? Hum Reprod 1997; 12:2147-2150.
91. Murray DL, Sagoskin AW, Widra EA, Levy MJ. The adverse effect of hydrosalpinges on in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates and the benefit of surgical correction. Fertil Steril 1998; 69:41-45.