Oil-soluble versus water-soluble media for assessing tubal patency with hysterosalpingography or laparoscopy in subfertile women

Tubal flushing for subfertility

BACKGROUND

Establishing the subgroup analysis of the fallopian tubes (tubes) is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and visualising patency on radiographs, ultrasonography or laparoscopy. Many women were noted to conceive in the first three to six months after tubal flushing, raising the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates. An important adverse event during tubal flushing is intravasation (backflow of contrast medium into the blood or lymphatic vessels),which could lead to embolism although it is asymptomatic in most cases.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) and water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) on subsequent fertility outcomes in women with subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, reference lists of identified articles and trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with OSCM, WSCM with each other or with no treatment, in women with subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials involving 3864 women were included in this systematic review. Overall, the quality of evidence varied from very low to moderate: the main limitations were risk of bias, heterogeneity and imprecision. OSCM versus no treatment Four studies (506 women) were included in this comparison. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 6.85, 3 RCTs, 204 women, I² = 0, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 11%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 16% and 46%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase in the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.08 to 6.02, 4 RCTs, 506 women, I² = 18%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 9%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 17% and 37%. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. WSCM versus no treatment Only one study (334 women) was included in this comparison. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increase live birth compared to no treatment (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 21%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 15% and 33%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increases clinical pregnancy compared to no treatment (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 27%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 29% and 40%. One case with pelvic infection was reported in the WSCM group and no case with infection in the no treatment group in a one study (334 women). Meta-analysis was not performed due to the rare events. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. OSCM versus WSCM Six studies (2598 women) were included in this comparison. Three studies reported live birth, including two with higher live birth in the OSCM group (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.11, 1119 women; OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.03, 398 women); and one with insufficient evidence of a difference between groups (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40, 533 women). Given the substantial heterogeneity observed (I² = 86%), meta-analysis was not performed. Tubal flushing with OSCM probably increased in the odds of intravasation (asymptomatic) compared to tubal flushing with WSCM (OR 5.00, 95% CI 2.25 to 11.12, 4 RCTs, 1912 women, I² = 0, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of intravasation following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 1%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 2% and 9%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.85, 6 RCTs, 2598 women, I² = 41%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 26%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 28% and 39%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with OSCM decreases the odds of infection (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.22, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I² = 0, very low-quality evidence) or haemorrhage (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.06, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I² = 0, very low-quality evidence). Three neonates with congenital abnormalities were reported in the OSCM group while no congenital abnormality was reported in the WSCM group in one study (1119 women). No meta-analysis was performed due to the rare events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that compared to no treatment, tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the chance of live birth and clinical pregnancy, while it is uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM improves those outcomes. Compared to tubal flushing with WSCM, OSCM may improve clinical pregnancy while meta-analysis was impossible for live birth due to heterogeneity. Evidence also suggests that OSCM is associated with an increased risk of asymptomatic intravasation. Overall, adverse events, especially long-term adverse events, are poorly reported across studies.

Tubal flushing for subfertility

BACKGROUND

Establishing the patency of the fallopian tubes is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and taking radiographs. However, it has been noted that many women conceive in the first three to six months after the tubal flushing, which has raised the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of flushing fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on live birth and pregnancy rates in women with subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, trial registers and reference lists of identified articles. The most recent search was conducted in June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with oil-soluble or water-soluble contrast media, or with no treatment, in women with subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials involving 2914 women were included, of whom 2494 were included in the analysis. Oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) versus no interventionThe OSCM group had a higher rate of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 6.91, 1 RCT, 158 women, low quality evidence) and ongoing pregnancy (OR 3.59, 95% CI 2.06 to 6.26, 3 RCTs, 382 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence) than women who had no intervention. Our findings suggest that among subfertile women with a 17% chance of an ongoing pregnancy if they have no intervention, the rate will increase to between 29% and 55% if they have tubal flushing with OSCM. Water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) versus no interventionThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, very low quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, very low quality evidence). OSCM versus WSCMTwo RCTs reported live birth: one found a higher live birth rate in the oil-soluble group and the other found no evidence of a difference between the groups. These studies were not pooled due to very high heterogeneity (I(2) = 93%). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of ongoing pregnancy, however there was high heterogeneity (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.47, 5 RCTs, 1454 women, I(2) = 76%, random-effects model, very low quality evidence). OSCM plus WSCM versus WSCM aloneThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, 1 RCT, 393 women, very low quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72, 4 RCTs, 633 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between any of the interventions in rates of adverse events, but such events were poorly reported in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media may increase the chance of pregnancy and live birth compared to no intervention. Findings for other comparisons were inconclusive due to inconsistency and lack of statistical power. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to reach firm conclusions. Further robust randomised controlled trials are needed.

Comparison of hysterosalpingography and transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy in patients with tubal factor infertility: a prospective cohort study

Aim

To evaluate the usefulness, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) in infertile women with abnormal hysterosalpingogram (HSG) results without obvious pelvic pathology.

Material and methods

Thirty infertile women (age: 20–40 years) who had tubal pathology in HSG were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent THL instead of standard laparoscopy. A cost analysis was performed comparing HSG and THL methods.

Results

In comparison of the HSG of cases by considering the chromopertubation results by THL, the sensitivity and specificity of HSG were 85.1% and 56%, respectively. The reasons for preferring standard laparoscopy rather than THL were: failure in accessing of Douglas (n = 3), insufficient monitoring of pelvis (n = 1), hydrosalpinx (n = 1), and intense peritubal adhesion (n = 1), which were 10%, 3%, 3%, and 3%, respectively. The complication rate was 3.8%. Cost analysis of the procedures showed that the total cost of the THL group was 34.8% lower than the HSG group.

Conclusions

In the elective patients group, THL is more feasible than HSG. Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy is effective, simple and safe, avoiding the cost, possible complications, time and postoperative patient discomfort compared to conventional laparoscopy.

Postoperative procedures for improving fertility following pelvic reproductive surgery

BACKGROUND

Hydrotubation with oil-soluble contrast media for unexplained infertility and adhesiolysis for infertility due to peritubal adhesions are primary procedures that are of recognised benefit. It is less clear whether postoperative procedures such as hydrotubation or second-look laparoscopy with adhesiolysis are beneficial following pelvic reproductive surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the value of postoperative hydrotubation and second-look laparoscopy with adhesiolysis following female pelvic reproductive surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register (August 2008), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2008), EMBASE (1980 to August 2008), PsycINFO (1967 to August 2008), Current Contents (1993 to August 2008), Biological Abstracts (1969 to August 2008), CINAHL (1982 to August 2008) and reference lists of identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials in which a postoperative procedure was compared with a control group following pelvic reproductive surgery were considered for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five randomised controlled trials were identified and included in this updated review. An attempt was made to obtain further information from the authors of all five trials. All trials were assessed for quality. The studied outcomes were pregnancy, live birth, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage rates, and the rates of tubal patency and procedure-related complications. Review authors extracted the data independently and the odds ratios (OR) were estimated for these dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Five randomised controlled trials were identified and included in this review. The odds of pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 2.21) and live birth (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.59) were not significantly different with postoperative hydrotubation versus no hydrotubation. The odds of pregnancy (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.07) or live birth (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.32) were also not significantly different with second-look laparoscopy and adhesiolysis versus no second-look laparoscopy. Whether hydrotubation was early or late and whether hydrotubation fluid contained steroid or not had no significant impact on the odds of pregnancy or live birth. Late antibiotic hydrotubation increased the odds of at least one patent fallopian tube when compared with early hydrotubation in women (OR 7.72, 95% CI 2.50 to 8.93). The odds of infective morbidity significantly increased with early hydrotubation when compared with late non-antibiotic hydrotubation (OR 4.72, 95% CI 2.50 to 8.93). When comparing late hydrotubation following tubal stent removal with early hydrotubation in women who had no tubal stenting, there was no significant difference in pregnancy or live birth rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the routine practice of hydrotubation or second-look laparoscopy following female pelvic reproductive surgery. The studies on which this conclusion is based were either of poor quality or underpowered. These interventions should be performed in the context of a good quality, adequately powered randomised controlled trial. Postoperative hydrotubation with fluid containing antibiotic may offer benefit over hydrotubation fluid without antibiotic following tubal surgery. A randomised controlled trial of postoperative hydrotubation with antibiotic-containing fluid versus no hydrotubation for improving fertility following tubal surgery is justified.

Tubal flushing for subfertility

BACKGROUND

A possible therapeutic effect of diagnostic tubal patency testing has been debated in the literature for half a century. Further debate surrounds whether oil-soluble or water-soluble contrast media might have the bigger fertility-enhancing effect.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of flushing a woman's fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on subsequent fertility outcomes in couples with infertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched 31 January 2007), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstract and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials comparing tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media or tubal flushing with water-soluble media or with no treatment in women with subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials involving 2079 participants were included. Tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus no intervention was associated with a significant increase in the odds of live birth (Peto OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.40 to 6.37) and of pregnancy (Peto OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 5.43). For the comparison of tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus tubal flushing with water-soluble media, the increase in the odds of live birth for tubal flushing with oil-soluble versus water-soluble media (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.11) was based on two trials where statistical heterogeneity was present and the higher quality trial showed no significant difference; there was no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54). The addition of oil-soluble media to flushing with water-soluble media showed no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79) or live birth (Peto OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77). There were no serious adverse event reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media in increasing the odds of pregnancy and live birth versus no intervention. Future robust randomised trials, comparing oil-soluble versus water-soluble media, water-soluble media versus no intervention and tubal flushing versus established treatments for infertility would be a useful further guide to clinical practice.

Assessing observational studies of medical treatments

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have assessed the validity of the observational study design by comparing results of studies using this design to results from randomized controlled trials. The present study examined design features of observational studies that could have influenced these comparisons.

METHODS

To find at least 4 observational studies that evaluated the same treatment, we reviewed meta-analyses comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials for the assessment of medical treatments. Details critical for interpretation of these studies were abstracted and analyzed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Individual articles reviewed included 61 observational studies that assessed 10 treatment comparisons evaluated in two studies comparing randomized controlled trials and observational studies. The majority of studies did not report the following information: details of primary and ancillary treatments, outcome definitions, length of follow-up, inclusion/exclusion criteria, patient characteristics relevant to prognosis or treatment response, or assessment of possible confounding. When information was reported, variations in treatment specifics, outcome definition or confounding were identified as possible causes of differences between observational studies and randomized controlled trials, and of heterogeneity in observational studies.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of observational studies of medical treatments was often inadequate to compare study designs or allow other meaningful interpretation of results. All observational studies should report details of treatment, outcome assessment, patient characteristics, and confounding assessment.