Pinto ABM, Hovsepian DM, Wattanakumtornkul S, Pilgram TK. Pregnancy outcomes after fallopian tube recanalization: oil-based versus water-soluble contrast agents.
J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;
14:69-74. [PMID:
12525588 DOI:
10.1097/01.rvi.0000052293.26939.10]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE
To determine the pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing fallopian tube recanalization (FTR) with use of oil-based versus water-soluble contrast agents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ninety-three patients with unilateral or bilateral proximal tubal occlusion confirmed by hysterosalpingography or laparoscopy underwent FTR with use of water-soluble contrast material alone (n = 50) or also had an oil-based agent injected into each tube after recanalization (n = 43). Pregnancy rates and outcomes of the two groups were studied retrospectively.
RESULTS
With respect to differences between groups, only the body mass index proved to be a significant predictor (oil, 28.4; water, 24.7; P =.008). Mean age, duration of infertility, type of infertility, and initial diagnosis were comparable. There was a weak trend toward a higher pregnancy rate in the oil-based contrast material group, but it was not significant (P =.64). The average time to pregnancy was 4.4 months with use of oil-based contrast material, compared to 7.7 months with use of only water-soluble contrast material (P =.03).
CONCLUSION
The use of an oil-based agent had little effect on the rate of conception, but time to conception was reduced by more than 3 months.
Collapse