Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy · 2012
Surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy associated with predisposing factors of tuboperitoneal infertility.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Calcagno Angelo, Londero Ambrogio P, Haag Thierry, Driul Lorenza, Bertozzi Serena, Grassi Tiziana, Marchesoni Diego, Manhes Hubert
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We sought to study the advantages of laparoscopic conservative treatment and pelvic reproductive surgery in patients with ectopic pregnancy and predisposing factors of tuboperitoneal infertility.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who had undergone laparoscopic treatment for ectopic pregnancy were considered, with factors for tuboperitoneal infertility, while patients who underwent previous salpingectomy or assisted reproductive technology were excluded. The groups treated by salpingotomy (conservative) or salpingectomy (radical) were compared in terms of spontaneous intrauterine pregnancy rate, cumulative one-year pregnancy rate and recurrence of ectopic pregnancy. We considered patients treated with adhesiolysis, fimbrioplasty, and neosalpingostomy for tubal pathology as part of the fertility surgery group.
RESULTS: Among 41 considered patients, 21 (51%) underwent conservative laparoscopic management of ectopic pregnancy. Twenty patients (49%) had salpingectomy. Despite the treatment of tuboperitoneal infertility factors in both groups, the pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the conservative group than in the radical one (76% vs 25%, p < 0.05). The overall cumulative rate of ectopic pregnancy recurrence was 22% and no significant difference was found between conservative and radical treatment (p 0.645).
CONCLUSIONS: Salpingotomy should be preferred in all patients with ectopic pregnancy associated with factors of tuboperitoneal infertility. Infertility surgery clearly cannot help patients treated with salpingectomy, who obtain lower spontaneous pregnancy rates than those of the conservative group.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who had undergone laparoscopic treatment for ectopic pregnancy were considered, with factors for tuboperitoneal infertility, while patients who underwent previous salpingectomy or assisted reproductive technology were excluded. The groups treated by salpingotomy (conservative) or salpingectomy (radical) were compared in terms of spontaneous intrauterine pregnancy rate, cumulative one-year pregnancy rate and recurrence of ectopic pregnancy. We considered patients treated with adhesiolysis, fimbrioplasty, and neosalpingostomy for tubal pathology as part of the fertility surgery group.
RESULTS: Among 41 considered patients, 21 (51%) underwent conservative laparoscopic management of ectopic pregnancy. Twenty patients (49%) had salpingectomy. Despite the treatment of tuboperitoneal infertility factors in both groups, the pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the conservative group than in the radical one (76% vs 25%, p < 0.05). The overall cumulative rate of ectopic pregnancy recurrence was 22% and no significant difference was found between conservative and radical treatment (p 0.645).
CONCLUSIONS: Salpingotomy should be preferred in all patients with ectopic pregnancy associated with factors of tuboperitoneal infertility. Infertility surgery clearly cannot help patients treated with salpingectomy, who obtain lower spontaneous pregnancy rates than those of the conservative group.