Fertilité et risque de récidive après traitement chirurgical d’une grossesse extra-utérine : salpingotomie versus salpingectomie

Preliminary hysteroscopic tubal hydrotubation improves fertility outcomes after laparoscopic salpingotomy for tubal ampullary pregnancy

Background

Salpingotomy may change the anatomical structure and patency of the fallopian tube, which may affect the fallopian function. This study is to investigate the clinical efficacy of preliminary hysteroscopic tubal hydrotubation (HTH) after laparoscopic salpingotomy for tubal ampullary pregnancy.

Methods

A retrospective study was carried out, 140 women underwent laparoscopic salpingotomy for ampullary pregnancy from March 2013 to March 2017. Some patients received HTH in the 1st month and hysterosalpingography (HSG) in the 3rd month after salpingotomy (HTH group; n = 95), and some patients only received HSG in the 3rd month after salpingotomy (control group; n = 45). Clinical data, tubal patency and fertility outcome were evaluated after follow-up of 15 months.

Results

The tubal patency rate of the operated side was significantly higher in the HTH group than that in the control group (89.47% vs 68.89%, P < 0.05). The intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) rate was significantly higher in the HTH group (76.47% vs 51.11%, P < 0.05), and the recurrent ectopic pregnancy rate in the operated side was significantly lower in the HTH group than in the control group (9.41% vs 22.22%, P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that the positive factor for IUP was HTH (OR = 3.109, 95% CI 1.439–6.714, P = 0.004), while the negative factors were history of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) (OR = 0.167, 95% CI 0.074–0.377, P < 0.001) and history of tubal infertility (OR = 0.286, 95% CI 0.113–0.723, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Preliminary HTH after laparoscopic salpingotomy for ampullary pregnancy could improve reproductive function and lead to a better fertility outcome. Patients without history of PID or tubal infertility may be the most suitable ones for HTH after salpingotomy.

Fertility outcomes subsequent to medical and surgical treatment for ectopic pregnancy: A retrospective cohort study in Iran

Background

Ectopic pregnancy (EP) and its treatment methods may affect subsequent fertility outcomes.

Objective

To compare methotrexate (MTX), laparoscopic salpingostomy, and salpingectomy methods of EP treatment and their effects on fertility outcomes.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective cohort study was performed on women receiving a definitive diagnosis of tubular EP from 2014 to 2017 at Arash Medical Center, Tehran, Iran. In total, 194 women were studied, of which 64 were treated with MTX, 52 underwent salpingostomy, and 78 underwent salpingectomy, depending on their clinical status. Basic information, obstetrics history, and major outcomes of the treatment after an 18-month follow-up, including recurrence of EP, miscarriage, and successful intrauterine pregnancy (IUP), were recorded and variables were compared among the three groups.

Results

There was no significant difference in fertility outcomes among the three groups. Among the studied variables, predictors of successful IUP after EP treatment were multiparity (Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.37; 95%CI: 1.06-1.77), no history of miscarriage (HR: 2.37; 95%CI: 1.01-5.56), and a higher number of live births (HR: 1.54; 95%CI: 1.01-2.37). On the other hand, predictors of EP recurrence included nulliparity (HR: 1.61; 95%CI: 1.02-2.53) and a lower number of live births (HR: 3.84; 95%CI: 1.43-10.98). The effect of other factors, including the utilized therapeutic modalities, was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The current study results demonstrated that after an 18-month follow-up, fertility outcomes, including recurrence of EP and successful IUP, were not significantly different among the subjects with EP treated with MTX, salpingostomy, or salpingectomy. Further studies with long-term follow-ups are recommended.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Surgical Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy with Salpingectomy versus Salpingostomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the fertility outcomes of salpingectomy compared with those of salpingostomy among patients treated for tubal ectopic pregnancies, including a separate analysis of women with risk factors along with a review of the surgical technique.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review and meta-analysis from 1990 to the present through PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Ovid MEDLINE. The search string included "tubal pregnancy" or "ectopic" as well as "salpingectomy" and various terms describing salpingotomy.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Articles studying women who underwent surgical management of an ectopic pregnancy and the contrasted outcomes of salpingectomy vs salpingostomy were reviewed. The primary outcomes included subsequent intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) and repeat ectopic pregnancy (REP).

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which consisted mostly of patients classified as low risk, and patients from 16 cohort studies were included. In the RCTs, there was no significant difference in the odds of subsequent IUP in patients who underwent a salpingectomy compared with those who were treated with salpingotomy (odds ratio [OR] 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.33). However, a significant and clinically meaningful difference was noted in the cohort studies, with the patients having a lower chance of IUP after salpingectomy (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.52). No significant difference was noted in the OR for a REP in the randomized trials (OR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.41-1.47), but the patients followed in the cohort studies had a cumulatively higher risk of REP after a salpingostomy (OR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.90). The subgroup analysis examining women within the studies with risk factors for tubal pathology found an even more impressive lowering in the odds of a subsequent IUP in patients classified as at-risk who were treated with salpingectomy (OR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.54), with a change in the direction of the odds for an REP rate favoring those who were treated with salpingostomy (OR 1.96; 95% CI, 0.88-4.35).

CONCLUSION

Salpingectomy has clear advantages over salpingostomy, and RCTs consisting mainly of patients classified as low risk show no difference in outcomes between salpingectomy and salpingostomy. However, in cohort studies inclusive of all patients, the likelihood of a subsequent spontaneous IUP is decreased in patients treated with salpingectomy, and salpingostomies may be especially underused in women with risk factors for tubal disease.