Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 12, 2634-2637,
December 2003
© 2003 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of unilateral hydrosalpinx increases the potential for spontaneous pregnancy
1 Shady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science Center, Rockville, MD, 2 Center for Women’s Medicine, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Greenville, SC and 3 Alta Bates IVF Program, Alta Bates Medical Center, Berkeley, CA, USA
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Shady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science Center, 15001 Shady Grove Road, Suite 400, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. e-mail: ARTSAGOS{at}aol.com
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
BACKGROUND: Studies carried out over the past 10 years have suggested that hydrosalpinges reduce the pregnancy rate in IVF. Here we report our observations of spontaneous pregnancies in patients who underwent salpingectomy (n = 18) or proximal tubal occlusion (n = 7) following diagnoses of unilateral hydrosalpinges and patent contralateral tubes. METHODS: This multi-centre, retrospective study included 25 infertility patients with known unilateral hydrosalpinges with a patent contralateral Fallopian tube. Laparoscopic treatment of unilateral hydrosalpinges by either salpingectomy or tubal occlusion was performed in each patient. Rates of subsequently observed spontaneous pregnancy, and time to pregnancy, are reported. RESULTS: The average duration of infertility in these patients was 3 years with a range of 1–10 years. Following laparoscopic surgical treatment, a total of 22 patients (88%) achieved intrauterine pregnancies, all without IVF treatment. Pregnancies occurred in an average of 5.6 months with a range of 1–21 months. There were no ectopic pregnancies in the study population. CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients with unilateral hydrosalpinges and a patent contralateral Fallopian tube may exhibit increased cycle fecundity after salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of the affected tube and conceive without the need for IVF.
Key words: hydrosalpinx/IVF/salpingectomy/tubal occlusion
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Tubal disease, secondary to a number of causes, continues to be a major source of infertility in young, otherwise fertile couples. With advances in IVF it is becoming current practice to treat these patients with IVF rather than attempting restoration of tubal function. In addition, the negative impact of communicating hydrosalpinges on implantation rates in IVF has been well documented (Kassabji et al., 1994
; Strandell et al., 1994, 1999; Vandromme et al., 1995; Akman et al., 1996; Fleming and Hull, 1996; Katz et al., 1996; Blazar et al., 1997; Nackley and Muasher, 1998; Zeyneloglu et al., 1998; Camus et al., 1999; Cohen et al., 1999), leading many to remove damaged Fallopian tubes prior to IVF. We previously reported reduced IVF pregnancy rates in our patients with either unilateral or bilateral communicating hydrosalpinges, consistent with earlier findings (Murray et al., 1998). Treatment by either salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion prior to IVF restored the pregnancy rates to those expected for patient age and tubal factor without hydrosalpinges. Since that time, we have noted the occurrence of spontaneous pregnancies after surgery in patients with unilateral hydrosalpinges with a normal contralateral tube. Here, we report these findings in a multi-centre series of patients undergoing such treatment for unilateral hydrosalpinges with either proximal tubal occlusion or salpingectomy, and demonstrate a high pregnancy rate without the need for IVF. |
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This report is a retrospective multi-centre analysis of 25 patients with documented unilateral hydrosalpinges in the presence of a patent normal contralateral Fallopian tube. All patients at the three centres with this diagnosis between September 1992 and November 2002 underwent laparoscopic examination and either unilateral salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion, and were included in the analysis.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The mean patient age was 33 years at the time of treatment, with a range of 26–41 years. The average duration of infertility was 3 years with a range 1–10 years. Laparoscopic unilateral salpingectomies were performed on 18 patients and proximal tubal occlusion on the remaining seven. None had complications during or after their surgery. Over time, 22 patients achieved intrauterine pregnancies without IVF treatment (88%) (Table I). Spontaneous pregnancies occurred in 21/22 patients. In 17 of these patients who became pregnant, timed coitus was chosen prior to any other planned treatments. In four patients who became pregnant, IVF was planned, but spontaneous pregnancy occurred prior to initiating their IVF cycle. The average time to pregnancy was 5.6 months with a range of 1–21 months. One additional patient became pregnant after a cycle of gonadotrophins and intrauterine insemination (IUI), following 10 months of timed intercourse. That patient had had a previous failed cycle of gonadotrophin stimulation and IUI prior to her tubal surgery. Three women did not become pregnant. There were no ectopic pregnancies in this study population and all had singleton pregnancies.
|
Comparing the two methods of treatment, pregnancy rates appear comparable (Table II), although sample sizes are not large enough for meaningful statistical comparisons. However, the variance in time to pregnancy was significantly less following salpingectomy compared with proximal tubal occlusion (P < 0.01, variance ratio F-test), and the mean time to pregnancy was significantly shorter following salpingectomy compared with proximal tubal occlusion (3.1 versus 12.3 months, P = 0.018, Welch t-test for unequal variance). Age and years of infertility did not differ significantly between the two surgical treatments.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The optimal treatment to improve fecundity in patients with hydrosalpinges continues to be a subject of debate. In a large, prospective IVF trial examining the effect of salpingectomy for patients with unilateral and bilateral hydrosalpinges, Strandell et al. (1999
, 2001) reported significant improvement in IVF outcome only in the subgroups of bilateral and ultrasound visible hydrosalpinges. A recent meta-analysis of randomized studies concluded that salpingectomy enhances IVF success and should be considered for all women with hydrosalpinges prior to IVF (Johnson et al., 2002). In the present study, we examined only patients with longstanding infertility and unilateral hydrosalpinges and observed them over time, without IVF treatment. In this select group of patients, it would appear that either unilateral salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion was very effective in restoring normal fertility. What was most striking about these results was the short duration of time between surgery and pregnancy, in most individuals. This observation of spontaneous pregnancy after unilateral salpingectomy of a hydrosalpinx has been observed previously (Choe and Check, 1999; Aboulghar et al., 2002).
The treatment of unilateral and bilateral hydrosalpinx remains controversial. Even though intrauterine pregnancy rates remain low after neosalpingostomy (Rock et al., 1978), some investigators still feel that neosalpingostomy is indicated in a select subgroup of patients (Taylor et al., 2001). Many studies have shown that patients with hydrosalpinges undergoing IVF without proximal ligation or salpingectomy of the affected tubes have a lower pregnancy rate compared with those without hydrosalpinges (Kassabji et al., 1994; Strandell et al., 1994, 1999; Vandromme et al., 1995; Akman et al., 1996; Fleming and Hull, 1996; Katz et al., 1996; Blazar et al., 1997; Murray et al., 1998; Nackley and Muasher, 1998; Zeyneloglu et al., 1998; Camus et al., 1999; Cohen et al., 1999). Decreased implantation rates have also been reported in patients with hydrosalpinges demonstrated by sonography (Andersen et al., 1994).
There are various ideas formulated to explain this negative effect of the hydrosalpinges. One theory suggests a mechanical effect of hydrosalpinx fluid mediated by ‘reflux currents that may thrust embryos away from the implantation site’, thus affecting pregnancy rates (Eytan et al., 2001). Most theories support the concept of a negative effect of the hydrosalpinx fluid on endometrial receptivity, supported by the observation of an impairment of endometrial 
v
3 integrin expression in women with this disorder (Meyer et al., 1997; Bildirici et al., 2001). Still others have suggested a toxic effect of hydrosalpinx fluid on embryo quality, although not all studies agree (Sachdev et al., 1997; Granot et al., 1998; Koong et al., 1998; Strandell et al., 1998).
The present data clearly support surgical treatment of a unilateral hydrosalpinx, in selected infertile patients with a normal patent contralateral tube. Salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion may reverse the negative impact on implantation rates, presumably through the prevention of hydrosalpinx fluid efflux into the uterine cavity, thus avoiding adverse effects on endometrial receptivity. The overall increase in cycle fecundity in these patients treated with salpingectomy or tubal interruption suggests an alternative treatment to IVF, especially considering the short time to conception in natural cycles following the surgical treatment. Two studies (Murray et al., 1998; Surrey and Schoolcraft, 2001) demonstrated similar increased pregnancy rates in patients undergoing salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of hydrosalpinges prior to IVF, thus recommending either as treatment prior to IVF.
However, in this study there was a statistically significant shorter time to achieve pregnancy in the salpingectomy group compared with the proximal tubal ligation group. This observation among patients attempting spontaneous pregnancy raises the question as to whether the residual non-communicating hydrosalpinx in those patients who underwent proximal tubal occlusion continues to allow a hostile environment, increasing the time to pregnancy. The sequelae of occluding a tube (as opposed to resection) were not examined. However, removal of a large hydrosalpinx, when possible, may avoid the need for further surgery for such reasons as pelvic pain. It should be noted that normal tubal anatomy and fimbria on the remaining contralateral tube is probably an important prognostic factor in the overall success that we observed and should be considered at the time of laparoscopy.
The findings in the present study demonstrated that 88% of patients achieved a spontaneous pregnancy in an average of 5.6 months after surgery. It has been reported that non-IVF pregnancy rates in patients with a unilateral hydrosalpinx treated with neosalpingostomy were higher than in patients with bilateral hydrosalpinges treated with neosalpingostomy (Dlugi et al., 1994; McComb and Taylor, 2001). The McComb study also suggests that the difference in pregnancy rates is probably secondary to the removal of the detrimental effect of the hydrosalpinx fluid. An ectopic pregnancy rate of 5.3% was reported in the Dlugi study and 4% in the McComb study, whereas no ectopic pregnancies were noted in our series. In fact, ectopic pregnancy rates have been reported to be higher in patients undergoing IVF who have had previous distal tubal surgery (Zouves et al., 1991).
In conclusion, selected patients with a unilateral hydrosalpinx and a normal patent contralateral Fallopian tube may increase their fecundity after salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of the affected tube, without the need for IVF. It appears, though, that salpingectomy is more effective in achieving a spontaneous pregnancy sooner. Unilateral salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion may be a better option than attempted neosalpingostomy since the latter choice has an associated increased risk for ectopic pregnancy or re-occlusion of the treated tube. The apparent increase in spontaneous conception following unilateral surgery is a compelling reason to consider this as the first option prior to attempting IVF. Given the relatively limited size of this select patient population and the strength of the observed trends, randomization of patients to a prospective trial, while always ideal, may present practical and perhaps even ethical concerns.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Aboulghar, M.A., Mansour, R.T. and Serour, G.I. (2002) Spontaneous intrauterine pregnancy following salpingectomy for a unilateral hydrosalpinx. Hum. Reprod., 17, 1099–1100.
Akman, M.A., Garcia, J.E., Damewood, M.D., Watts, L.D. and Katz, E. (1996) Hydrosalpinx affects the implantation of previously cryopreserved embryos. Hum. Reprod., 11, 1013–1014.
Andersen, A.N., Yue, Z., Meng, F.J. and Petersen, K. (1994) Low implantation rate after in-vitro fertilization in patients with hydrosalpinges diagnosed by ultrasonography. Hum. Reprod., 9, 1935–1938.
Bildirici, I., Bukulmez, O., Ensari, A., Yarali, H. and Gurgan, T. (2001) A prospective evaluation of the effect of salpingectomy on endometrial receptivity in cases of women with communicating hydrosalpinges. Hum. Reprod., 16, 2422–2426.
Blazar, A.S., Hogan, J.W., Seifer, D.B., Frishman, G.N., Wheeler, C.A. and Haning, R.V. (1997) The impact of hydrosalpinx on successful pregnancy in tubal factor infertility treated by in vitro fertilization. Fertil. Steril., 67, 517–520.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Camus, E., Poncelet, C., Goffinet, F., Wainer, B., Merlet, F., Nisand, I. and Philippe, H.J. (1999) Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies. Hum. Reprod., 14, 1243–1249.
Choe, J. and Check, J.H. (1999) Salpingectomy for unilateral hydrosalpinx may improve in vivo fecundity. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest., 48, 285–287.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Cohen, M.A., Lindheim, S.R. and Sauer, M.V. (1999) Hydrosalpinges adversely affect implantation in donor oocyte cycles. Hum. Reprod., 14, 1087–1089.
Dlugi, A.M., Reddy, S., Saleh, W.A., Mersol-Barg, M.S. and Jacobsen, G. (1994) Pregnancy rates after operative endoscopic treatment of total (neosalpingostomy) or near total (salpingostomy) distal tubal occlusion. Fertil. Steril., 62, 913–920.[Web of Science][Medline]
Eytan, O., Azem, F., Gull, I., Wolman, I., Elad, D. and Jaffa, A.J. (2001) The mechanism of hydrosalpinx in embryo implantation. Hum. Reprod., 16, 2662–2667.
Fleming, C. and Hull, M.G. (1996) Impaired implantation after in vitro fertilisation treatment associated with hydrosalpinx. Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 103, 268–272.[Web of Science][Medline]
Granot, I., Dekel, N., Segal, I., Fieldust, S., Shoham, Z. and Barash, A. (1998) Is hydrosalpinx fluid cytotoxic? Hum. Reprod., 13, 1620–1624.
Johnson, N.P., Mak, W. and Sowter, M.C. (2002) Laparoscopic salpingectomy for women with hydrosalpinges enhances the success of IVF: a Cochrane review. Hum. Reprod., 17, 543–548.
Kassabji, M., Sims, J.A., Butler, L. and Muasher, S.J. (1994) Reduced pregnancy outcome in patients with unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinx after in vitro fertilization. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 56, 129–132.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Katz, E., Akman, M.A., Damewood, M.D. and Garcia, J.E. (1996) Deleterious effect of the presence of hydrosalpinx on implantation and pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization. Fertil. Steril., 66, 122–125.[Web of Science][Medline]
Koong, M.K., Jun, J.H., Song, S.J., Lee, H.J., Song, I.O. and Kang, I.S. (1998) A second look at the embryotoxicity of hydrosalpingeal fluid: an in-vitro assessment in a murine model. Hum. Reprod., 13, 2852–2856.
McComb, P.F. and Taylor, R.C. (2001) Pregnancy outcome after unilateral salpingostomy with a contralateral patent oviduct. Fertil. Steril., 76, 1278–1279.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Meyer, W.R., Castelbaum, A.J., Somkuti, S., Sagoskin, A.W., Doyle, M., Harris, J.E. and Lessey, B.A. (1997) Hydrosalpinges adversely affect markers of endometrial receptivity. Hum. Reprod., 12, 1393–1398.
Murray, D.L., Sagoskin, A.W., Widra, E.A. and Levy, M.J. (1998) The adverse effect of hydrosalpinges on in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates and the benefit of surgical correction. Fertil. Steril., 69, 41–45.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Nackley, A.C. and Muasher, S.J. (1998) The significance of hydrosalpinx in in vitro fertilization. Fertil. Steril., 69, 373–384.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Rock, J.A., Katayama, K.P., Martin, E.J., Woodruff, J.D. and Jones, H.W. Jr (1978) Factors influencing the success of salpingostomy techniques for distal fimbrial obstruction. Obstet. Gynecol., 52, 591–596.[Web of Science][Medline]
Sachdev, R., Kemmann, E., Bohrer, M.K. and el-Danasouri, I. (1997) Detrimental effect of hydrosalpinx fluid on the development and blastulation of mouse embryos in vitro. Fertil. Steril., 68, 531–533.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Strandell, A., Waldenstrom, U., Nilsson, L. and Hamberger, L. (1994) Hydrosalpinx reduces in-vitro fertilization/embryo transfer pregnancy rates. Hum. Reprod., 9, 861–863.
Strandell, A., Sjogren, A., Bentin-Ley, U., Thorburn, J., Hamberger, L. and Brannstrom, M. (1998) Hydrosalpinx fluid does not adversely affect the normal development of human embryos and implantation in vitro. Hum. Reprod., 13, 2921–2925.
Strandell, A., Lindhard, A., Waldenstrom, U., Thorburn, J., Janson, P.O. and Hamberger, L. (1999) Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: a prospective, randomized multicentre trial in Scandinavia on salpingectomy prior to IVF. Hum. Reprod., 14, 2762–2769.
Strandell, A., Lindhard, A., Waldenstrom, U. and Thorburn, J. (2001) Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: cumulative results after salpingectomy in a randomized controlled trial. Hum. Reprod., 16, 2403–2410.
Surrey, E.S. and Schoolcraft, W.B. (2001) Laparoscopic management of hydrosalpinges before in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: salpingectomy versus proximal tubal occlusion. Fertil. Steril., 75, 612–617.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Taylor, R.C., Berkowitz, J. and McComb, P.F. (2001) Role of laparoscopic salpingostomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinx. Fertil. Steril., 75, 594–600.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Vandromme, J., Chasse, E., Lejeune, B., Van Rysselberge, M., Delvigne, A. and Leroy, F. (1995) Hydrosalpinges in in-vitro fertilization: an unfavourable prognostic feature. Hum. Reprod., 10, 576–579.
Zeyneloglu, H.B., Arici, A. and Olive, D.L. (1998) Adverse effects of hydrosalpinx on pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril., 70, 492–499.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Zouves, C., Erenus, M. and Gomel, V. (1991) Tubal ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: a role for proximal occlusion or salpingectomy after failed distal tubal surgery? Fertil. Steril., 56, 691–695.[Web of Science][Medline]
Submitted on July 9, 2003; accepted on September 15, 2003.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||