REVIEW: Reconstruction, destruction and IVF: dilemmas in the art of tubal surgery

Hydrosalpinx: Tubal surgery or in vitro fertilisation? An everlasting dilemma nowadays; a narrative review

The decision on how to treat tubal diseases, specifically hydrosalpinx, is a difficult one. Ιt involves surgical, medical, social, emotional and economic factors. This narrative review aims to increase awareness of tubal disease diagnosis and treatment, to compare between tubal surgery and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for tubal factor infertility, and to investigate the effect of the combination of both. This way, we can be more effective, safe and provide our patients with better treatment results. The review analysed randomised studies, trials and meta-analysis, which give new aspects on the treatment methods for tubal pathology before IVF. Recent papers published in English have been studied, alongside guidelines and committee opinions from previous years. Tubal surgery and IVF aim to exploit a woman's reproductive potential. IVF and endoscopic tubal surgery must be thought of as complementary, rather than competing techniques in tubal disease cases, in order to improve fertility outcome. The first-line treatment for young women less than 35 years old with minor tubal pathology, is tubal surgery. IVF should be offered if there are other factors in a couple's subfertility, if the patient is >38 years old, if moderate to severe tubal disease is present, and if it has been more than 12 months post-surgery.

The current place of tubal surgery in the management of subfertility

Treatment of tubal disease can be challenging and complex. It requires accurate assessment of the extent of disease and evaluation of all fertility parameters. Although traditionally treatment involved salpingectomy or IVF or a combination of the two, less invasive treatment options may prove beneficial. We evaluated the various diagnostic tools for disease assessment and the treatment options available.

Fifteen-year trend in the use of reproductive surgery in women in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To determine trends in female reproductive surgery volume.

DESIGN

Database analysis using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases from 1988, 1992, 1998, and 2002.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PATIENT(S)

All patients who underwent reproductive surgeries using United States community hospital discharge data and inpatient and outpatient data for New Jersey (NJ) and Maryland (MD).

INTERVENTION(S)

SAS statistical software was used to estimate the number of reproductive surgeries per year; weighted least squares analysis was performed to estimate trends in surgeries.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Number of reproductive surgeries.

RESULT(S)

Nationally, approximately 250,000 inpatient female reproductive surgeries are performed yearly. There was a modest decreasing trend (-17%) in total reproductive surgeries, and the number of procedures with an associated diagnosis of infertility declined 79%; neither change reached statistical significance. Alternatively, a significant decline occurred in surgeries of the fallopian tubes and ovaries. Likewise, inpatient surgeries were unchanged in NJ and actually increased in MD (+13%), although outpatient surgeries declined in both states (-12% and -37%, respectively).

CONCLUSION(S)

The increased use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) has coincided with a decrease in surgeries on the fallopian tubes and ovaries. With the exception of surgery for tubal infertility, reproductive surgery has largely been complementary to, rather than replaced by, ART.

Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare tubal anastomosis by robotic system compared with outpatient minilaparotomy.

METHODS

In this retrospective case-control study, women were identified by current procedural terminology code for tubal anastomosis. We included all cases of tubal anastomosis for reversal of a prior tubal ligation by either outpatient minilaparotomy or robotic system technique. Cases performed by laparoscopy without aid of the robot were excluded. Comparisons were based on Fisher's exact, chi(2), and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

RESULTS

There were 26 cases of tubal anastomosis performed with the robot and 41 cases performed by outpatient minilaparotomy. The two groups were comparable in age, body mass index, and parity. Anesthesia time for the robotic technique (median with interquartile range) was 283 (267-290) minutes compared with 205 (170-230) minutes with outpatient minilaparotomy (P<.001). Surgical times for the robot and minilaparotomy were 229 (205-252) minutes and 181 (154-202) minutes respectively (P=.001). Hospitalization times, pregnancy, and ectopic pregnancy rates were not significantly different. The robotic technique was more costly. The median difference in costs of the procedures was $1,446 (95% confidence interval $1,112-1,812) (P<.001). The time to return to work was significantly shorter in the robotic system group by approximately 1 week (P=.013).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for tubal anastomosis was successfully accomplished without conversion to laparotomy. The robotic technique for tubal anastomosis required significantly prolonged surgical and anesthesia times over outpatient minilaparotomy (P<or=.001). Costs were higher with the robotic technique. Return to normal activity was shorter with the robotic technique.

The management of hydrosalpinges: tubal surgery or salpingectomy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The clinical management of hydrosalpinges in infertile patients remains a contentious issue. This review aims to provide a critical analysis on the available treatments for hydrosalpinges, which have recently created a fierce debate between the promoters of salpingectomy and in-vitro fertilization and those who endorse tubal surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hydrosalpinges have a detrimental effect on the outcome of in-vitro fertilization yet their mechanism is still unclear. Salpingectomy prior to in-vitro fertilization restores the likelihood of a successful outcome in a well defined group of patients with ultrasound-visible hydrosalpinges. However, not every woman with large hydrosalpinges should undergo salpingectomy as some fallopian tubes may be amenable to surgical repair. Preserved tubal mucosa indicates a good prognosis for tubal surgery, therefore an appropriate mucosal assessment should be routine prior to deciding upon further management.

SUMMARY

As salpingectomy is a definitive procedure it should be performed when the hydrosalpinges are beyond repair or in cases of in-vitro fertilization failure. Tubal surgery should be preferred to salpingectomy in mild to moderate tubal disease. A comparative study of restorative tubal surgery versus salpingectomy and in-vitro fertilization in selected women with hydrosalpinges is needed and will significantly help this debate. Prophylactic salpingectomy prior to in-vitro fertilization and tubal surgery is not competing but complementary in the treatment of hydrosalpinges-related infertility.