Fertility and sterility · 2001
Laparoscopic management of hydrosalpinges before in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: salpingectomy versus proximal tubal occlusion.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Surrey E S, Schoolcraft W B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare ovarian response and IVF-ET cycle outcome in patients with hydrosalpinges managed by either laparoscopic salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis.
SETTING: Tertiary-care assisted reproductive technology program.
PATIENT(S): One hundred four consecutive fresh IVF-ET cycles in 94 patients with tubal-factor infertility.
INTERVENTION(S): Laparoscopic salpingectomy (group 1: 35 cycles) or bipolar proximal tubal occlusion (group 2: 17 cycles), controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, and IVF-ET. Control groups consisted of both tubal-factor patients without hydrosalpinges (group 3: 37 cycles) and those with prior bilateral tubal ligation for sterilization (group 4: 15 cycles).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Uterine artery Doppler flow, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation response, and implantation and clinical pregnancy rates.
RESULT(S): There were no differences in mean uterine artery pulsatility indices or ovarian response among any of the groups. A trend toward a higher cycle cancellation rate in group 1 did not approach statistical significance. Clinical pregnancy and implantation rates were not significantly different between group 1 (57.1%, 29.2 +/- 5.9%, respectively) and group 2 (46.7%, 19.4 +/- 6.1%, respectively) or compared with those of controls.
CONCLUSION(S): [1] Management of hydrosalpinges by laparoscopic salpingectomy or bipolar proximal tubal occlusion yielded statistically similar responses to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and IVF-ET cycle outcome. [2] The latter approach may be preferable in patients who present with dense pelvic adhesions and easy access only to the proximal fallopian tube.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis.
SETTING: Tertiary-care assisted reproductive technology program.
PATIENT(S): One hundred four consecutive fresh IVF-ET cycles in 94 patients with tubal-factor infertility.
INTERVENTION(S): Laparoscopic salpingectomy (group 1: 35 cycles) or bipolar proximal tubal occlusion (group 2: 17 cycles), controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, and IVF-ET. Control groups consisted of both tubal-factor patients without hydrosalpinges (group 3: 37 cycles) and those with prior bilateral tubal ligation for sterilization (group 4: 15 cycles).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Uterine artery Doppler flow, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation response, and implantation and clinical pregnancy rates.
RESULT(S): There were no differences in mean uterine artery pulsatility indices or ovarian response among any of the groups. A trend toward a higher cycle cancellation rate in group 1 did not approach statistical significance. Clinical pregnancy and implantation rates were not significantly different between group 1 (57.1%, 29.2 +/- 5.9%, respectively) and group 2 (46.7%, 19.4 +/- 6.1%, respectively) or compared with those of controls.
CONCLUSION(S): [1] Management of hydrosalpinges by laparoscopic salpingectomy or bipolar proximal tubal occlusion yielded statistically similar responses to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and IVF-ET cycle outcome. [2] The latter approach may be preferable in patients who present with dense pelvic adhesions and easy access only to the proximal fallopian tube.