American Society of Reproductive Medicine and The Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Fertility. Directory of Fellowship Programs in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Available in 2017, 2016. www.socrei.org/uploadedFiles/Affiliates/SOCREI/Fellowships/REIFellowshipPrograms.pdfGoogle Scholar

Connolly, MP, Hoorens, S, Chambers, GM. The cost and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Hum Reprod Update 2010; 16(6): 603–613.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted reproductive technology 2012 national summary report. www.cdc.gov/art/ART2012Google Scholar

Kulkarni, G, Mohanty, NC, Mohanty, IR, Jadhav, P, Boricha, BG. Survey of reasons for discontinuation from in vitro fertilization among couples attending infertility clinic. J Hum Reprod Sci 2014; 7(4): 249–254.Google Scholar

Gameiro, S, Verhaak, CM, Kremer, JAM, Boivin, J. Why we should talk about compliance with assisted reproductive technologies (ART): a systematic review and meta-analysis of ART compliance rates. Hum Reprod Update 2013 Mar; 19(2): 124–135.Google Scholar

The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion, Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 44–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cramer, SF, Patel, A. The frequency of uterine leiomyomas. Am J Clin Pathol 1990; 94: 435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Downes, E, Sikirica, V, Gilabert-Estelles, J et al. The burden of uterine fibroids in five European countries, Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 152: 96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Myomas and Reproductive Function, Practice Committee of American Society of Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with the Society of Reproductive Surgeons. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: s125–130.Google Scholar

FDA warns against using laparoscopic power morcellators to treat uterine fibroids. November 24, 2014. www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm424435.htmGoogle Scholar

FDA allows marketing of first-of-kind tissue containment system for use with certain laparoscopic power morcellators in select patients. April 7, 2016. www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/NewsRoom/PressAnouncement/ucm494650.htmGoogle Scholar

Gibbons, L, Belizan, JM, Lauer, JA, Betran, AP, Merialdi, M, Althabe, F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: e1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Vervoort, AJ, Uittenbogaard, LB, Hehenkamp, WJ, Brolmann, HA, Huirne, JA. Why do niches develop in Cesarean scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 2015; 30(12): 2695–2702.Google ScholarPubMed

Jacobson, MT, Osias, J, Velasco, A, Charles, R, Nezhat, C. Laparoscopic repair of uteroperitoneal fistula. J S Laparoendsc Surg 2003; 7(4): 367–369.Google ScholarPubMed

Healy, MW, Schexnayder, NB, Connell, MT et al. Intrauterine adhesion prevention after hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 267–275.Google Scholar

Saccone, G, Perriera, L, Berghella, V. Prior uterine evacuation of pregnancy as independent risk factor for preterm birth: a systematic review and metaanalysis, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016 May; 572–591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Goldberg, AB, Dean, G, Kang, MS, Youssof, S, Darney, PD. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for early first-trimester abortion: a controlled study of complication rates, Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104: 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bermejo, C, Martinez Ten, P, Cantarero, R, Diaz, D, Perez Pedregosa, J et al. Three dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 593–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dabirashrafi, H, Bahadori, M, Mohammad, K, Alavi, M, Moghadami-Tabrizi, N, Zandinejad, K et al. Septate uterus: new idea on the histologic features of the septum in this abnormal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 105–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Practice Committee Opinion. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2016; 106 (3): 530–539.Google Scholar

Mueller, GC, Hussain, HK, Smith, YR, Quint, EH, Carlos, RC, Johnson, TD et al. Mullerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis, AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 1294–1302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Maneschi, F, Zupi, E, Marconi, D, Valli, E, Romamanini, C, Mancuso, S. Hysteroscopically detected asymptomatic mullerian anomalies. Prevalence and reproductive implications, J Reprod Med 1995; 40: 684–688.Google ScholarPubMed

Dermir, B, Dilbaz, B, Karadag, B, Duraker, R, Akkurt, O, Kocak, M et al. Coexistence of endometriosis and uterine septum in patients with abortion or infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2011; 37: 1596–1600.Google Scholar

Tonguc, EA, Var, T, Batioglu, S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in patients with a uterine septum and otherwise unexplained infertility. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 113: 128–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Salim, R, Regan, L, Woelfer, B, Backos, M, Jurkovic, D. A comparative study of the morphology of congenital uterine anomalies in women with and without a history of recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 162–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Candiani, GB, Vercellini, P, Fedele, L, Carinelli, SG, Merlo, D, Arcaini, L. Repair of the uterine cavity after hysteroscopic septal incision, Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 991–994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berkkanoglu, M, Isikoglu, M, Arici, F, Ozgur, K. What is the best time to perform intracytoplasmic sperm injection/embryo transfer cycle after hysteroscopic surgery for an incomplete uterine septum? Fertil Steril 2008; 90: 2112–2115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rock, JA, Katayama, KP, Martin, EJ et al. Factors influencing the success of salpingostomy techniques for distal fimbrial obstruction, Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52: 591.Google Scholar

Johnson, N, van Voorst, S, Sowter, MC, Strandell, A, Moll, BW. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilization, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 (1); CD002125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Salpingectomy for hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: s66–69.Google Scholar

Ransom, MX, Garcia, AJ. Surgical management of cornual-isthmic tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril 1997; 68(5): 887–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a committee opinion, Fertil Steril 2015; 103(6): e37–e43.Google Scholar

Gomel, V. The place of reconstructive tubal surgery in the era of ART. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015; 31: 722–731.Google Scholar

Rouzi, AA, Mackinnon, M, McComb, PF. Predictors of success of reversal of sterilization, Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yoon, TK, Sung, HR, Kang, HG, Lee, CN, Cha, KY. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril 1999; 72; 1121–1126.Google Scholar

Essure: summary of safety and effectiveness. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/02/briefing/3881b1_02.docGoogle Scholar

Monteith, CW, Berger, GS, Zerden, ML. Pregnancy success after hysteroscopic sterilization reversal, Obstet Gynecol 2014 Dec; 124(6): 1183–1189.Google Scholar

Galen, DI, Richter, KS. Essure multicenter off-label treatment for hydrosalpinx before in vitro fertilization. J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2011 May–Jun; 18(3): 338–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

de Wit, W, Gowrising, CJ, Kuik, DJ, Lens, JW, Schats, R. Only hydrosalpinges visible on ultrasound are associated with reduced implantation and pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1696–1701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sagoskin, AW, Lessey, BA, Mottla, GL, Richter, KS, Chetkowski, RJ, Chang, AS et al. Salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of unilateral hydrosalpinx increases the potential for spontaneous pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 2634–2637.Google Scholar

Bulent Tiras, M, Noyan, V, Ozdemir, H, Guner, H, Yildiz, A, Yildirim, M. The changes in ovarian hormone levels and ovarian artery blood flow rate after laparoscopic tubal ligation, Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 99: 219–221.Google Scholar

Kerin, JF, Munday, D, Ritossa, M, Rosen, D. Tissue encapsulation of the proximal Essure mirco-insert from the uterine cavity following hysteroscopic sterilization. J Min Invas Gynecol 2007; 14: 202–204.Google Scholar

Wiesenfeld, HC, Hillier, SL, Meyn, L et al. Mycoplasma genitalium- is it a pathogen in acute pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)? STI & AIDS World Congress 2013 (Joint Meeting of the 20th ISSTDR and 14th IUSTI Meeting); July 14–27, 2013; Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar

Gaitan, H, Angel, E, Diaz, R et al. Accuracy of five different diagnostic techniques in mild-to-moderate pelvic inflammatory disease, Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2002; 10: 171–180.Google Scholar

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID). www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/pid.htmGoogle Scholar

Peipert, JF, Ness, RB, Blume, J et al. Clinical predictors of endometritis in women with symptoms and signs of pelvic inflammatory disease, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184: 856–864.Google Scholar

Sweet, RL. Treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2011; 561909Google ScholarPubMed

Smith, KJ, Ness, RB, Wiesenfeld, HC et al. Cost-effectiveness of alternative outpatient pelvic inflammatory disease treatment strategies, Sex Transm Dis 2007; 34: 960–966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Soper, DE. Surgical considerations in the diagnosis and treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease. Surg Clin North Am 1991; 71(5): 947–962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ginsburg, DS, Stern, JL, Hamod, KA et al. Tubo-ovarian abscess: a retrospective review, Am J Ob stet Gynecol 1980; 138: 1055.Google Scholar

Epstein, AM, Boutselis, JG, Ullery, JC. Surgical indications and treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease, Am J Surg 1962; 104(4): 555–559.Google Scholar

Tulandi, T, Murray, C, Guralnick, M. Adhesion formation and reproductive outcome after myomectomy and second-look laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 213–215.Google Scholar

Levrant, SG, Bieber, EJ, Barnes, RB. Anterior abdominal wall adhesions after laparotomy or laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1997; 4: 353–356.Google Scholar

Rappaport, WD, Holcomb, M, Valente, J, Chvapil, M. Antibiotic irrigation and the formation of intraabdominal adhesions. Am J Surg 1989; 44: 115–136.Google Scholar

Wiseman, DM, Trout, JR, Diamond, MP. The rates of adhesion development and the effects of crystalloid solutions on the adhesion development in pelvic surgery. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 702–711.Google Scholar

Mais, V, Ajossa, S, Piras, B, Guerriero, S, Marongiu, D, Melis, GB. Prevention of de novo adhesion formation after laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an oxidized regenerated cellulose absorbable barrier, Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 3133–3135.Google Scholar

Pathogenesis, consequences, and control of peritoneal adhesions in gynecologic surgeons. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Reproductive Surgeons Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 21–26.Google Scholar