Impact of unilateral tubal blockage diagnosed by hysterosalpingography on the success rate of treatment with controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 127-130

  Berker, B ^a   Sukur Y E ^a   Kahraman, K ^a   Atabekoglu C S ^a   Sonmezer M ^a   Ozmen B ^a   Ates C ^a  

^a ANKARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Hysterosalpingography; Intrauterine insemination; Unexplained infertility; Unilateral tubal pathology

Indexed keywords

CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED OVARIAN STIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; HUMAN; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INTRAUTERINE INSEMINATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNILATERAL DISTAL TUBAL BLOCKAGE; UNILATERAL PROXIMAL TUBAL BLOCKAGE; UTERINE TUBE OCCLUSION; YOUNG ADULT; ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; COMPLICATION; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTERINE TUBE DISEASE;

ADULT; FALLOPIAN TUBE DISEASES; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84893093852     PISSN: 01443615     EISSN: 13646893     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/01443615.2013.853030     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Balasch J. 2000. Investigation of the infertile couple in the era of assisted reproductive technology: A time for reappraisal. Human Reproduction 15: 2251-2257.
2. Broeze KA, Opmeer BC, Van Geloven N, Coppus SF, Collins JA, Den Hartog JE, et al. 2011. Are patient characteristics associated with the accuracy of hysterosalpingography in diagnosing tubal pathology? An individual patient data meta-Analysis. Human Reproduction Update 17: 293-300.
3. Farhi J, Ben-Haroush A, Lande Y, Fisch B. 2007. Role of treatment with ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination in women with unilateral tubal occlusion diagnosed by hysterosalpingography. Fertility and Sterility 88: 396-400.
4. Honore GM, Holden AE, Schenken RS. 1999. Pathophysiology and management of proximal tubal blockage. Fertility and Sterility 71 : 785-795.
5. Hussain M, Al Damegh S, Tabish A. 2007. Therapeutic efficacy of hysterosalpingography with special reference to application of hydrostatic pressure during the procedure. International Journal of Health Sciences (Qassim) 1: 223-227.
6. Kodaman PH, Arici A, Seli E. 2004. Evidence-based diagnosis and management of tubal factor infertility. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 16: 221-229.
7. Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, Swanson RJ, Matta JF, Oehninger S. 1998. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 49: 112-117.
8. Lavy Y, Lev-Sagie A, Holtzer H, Revel A, Hurwitz A. 2004. Should laparoscopy be a mandatory component of the infertility evaluation in infertile women with normal hysterosalpingogram or suspected unilateral distal tubal pathology? European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 114: 64-68.
9. Novy M, Thurmond AS, Patton P, Uchida BT, Rosch J. 1988. Diagnosis of cornual obstruction by transcervical fallopian tube cannulation. Fertility and Sterility 50: 434-440.
10. Rice JP, London SN, Olive L. 1986. Reevaluation of hysterosalpingography in infertility investigation. Obstetrics and Gynecology 67: 718-721.
11. Serafini P, Batzofin J. 1989. Diagnosis of female infertility. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 34: 29-40.
12. SperoffL, Glass RH, Kase NG. 1999. Female infertility. In: SperoffL, Glass RH, Kase NG, editors. Clinical gynecologic endocrinology and infertility. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
13. Swart P, Mol B, van der Veen F, van Beurden M, Redekop WK, Bossuyt PM. 1995. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: A meta-Analysis. Fertility and Sterility 64: 486-491.
14. WHO. 1993. Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and semen-cervical mucus interaction. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. p 3-27.