Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T23:01:50.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The value of salpingoscopy in tubal infertility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Ivo A Brosens
Ivo A Brosens*
Affiliation:
University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
*
Leuven Institute for Fertility and Sterility, Fonteinstraat 79, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium, Tel. and fax: 32.16.407514.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Tubal factors are estimated to account for 15–20 per cent of infertility. The incidence not only depends on the patient population but is probably also underestimated since evaluation of tubai function is largely restricted to the appraisal of its patency. Consequently the treatment of tubai infertility is primarily focused on the restoration of tubai patency. That infertility frequently persists in spite of successfully restored patency and that tubal pregnancy frequently occurs after infertility surgery suggest that underlying disease has not been diagnosed.

Type
Articles
Information
Reproductive Medicine Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Donnez, J. La trompe de Fallope: histophysiologie normale et pathologique. Université Catholique de Louvain 1984.Google Scholar
2Fortier, KJ, Haney, AF. The pathologic spectrum of uterotubal junction obstruction. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65: 93–98.Google ScholarPubMed
3Vasquez, G, Winston, RML, Boeckx, W, Brosens, I. Tubal lesions subsequent to sterilization and their relation to fertility after attempts at reversal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 138: 86–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Moore-White, M. Evaluation of tubal plastic operations. Int J Fertil 1960; 5: 237–50.Google Scholar
5Beyth, Y, Kopolovic, J. Accessory tubes: a possible contributory factor in fertility. Fertil Steril 1982;38: 382–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Palmer, R. Discussion on modern methods of salpingostomy. Proc R Soc Med 1960; 53: 357–60.Google Scholar
7Swolin, K. Electronmicrosurgery and salpingostomy: longterm results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1975; 121: 418–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Vasquez, G, Winston, RML, Boeckx, W, Cordts, S, Brosens, IA. Tubal mucosa and ectopic pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90: 468–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Henry-Suchet, J, Loffredo, V, Tesquier, L, Pez, JP. Endoscopy of the tube (tuboscopy): its prognostic value for tuboplasties. Acta Eur Fertil 1985; 16: 139–45.Google ScholarPubMed
10Cornier, E, Feintuch, MJ, Couccara, L. Fibrotuboscopic ampullaire. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1984; 1: 49–53.Google Scholar
11Brosens, I, Boeckx, W, Delattin, P, Puttemans, P, Vasquez, G. Salpingoscopy: a new pre-operative diagnostic tool in tubal infertility. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94: 768–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Puttemans, P, Brosens, I, Delattin, P, Vasquez, G, Boeckx, W. Salpingoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod 1987; 2: 535–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Herschlag, A, Seifer, DB, Carcangiu, ML, Patton, DL, Diamond, MP, DeChemey, AH. Salpingoscopy: light microscopic and electron microscopic correlations. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77: 399–405.Google Scholar
14Vasquez, G, Boeckx, W, Brosens, I. No correlation between peritubal and mucosal adhesions in hydrosalpinges. Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 1032–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Heylen, SM, Deyaert, V, Deprest, J, Puttemans, PJ, Brosens, IA. Endoscopic evaluation shows no correlation between peritubal and intratubal adhesions in postinflammatory tubal infertility. Fertil Steril In pressGoogle Scholar
16Marana, R, Rizzi, M, Muzii, L, Catalano, GF, Caruana, P, Mancuso, S. Correlation between the American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions and distal tubai occlusion, salpingoscopy and reproductive outcome in tubal surgery. Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 924–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Heylen, SM, Brosens, IA, Puttemans, P. Clinical value and cumulative pregnancy rates following salpingoscopy during laparoscopy in infertility. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 2913–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Shapiro, BS, Diamond, MP, DeCherney, AH. Salpingoscopy: an adjunctive technique for evaluation of the fallopian tube. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 1076–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Scudamore, IW, Dunphy, BC, Bowman, M, Jenkins, J, Cooke, ID. Comparison of ampullary assessment by falloposcopy and salpingoscopy. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 1516–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Nezhat, F, Winer, WK, Nezhat, C. Fimbrioscopy and salpingoscopy in patients with minimal to moderate pelvic endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75: 15–17.Google ScholarPubMed
21Winston, RML. Microsurgery of the fallopian tube from fantasy to reality. Fertil Steril 1980; 46: 521–30.Google Scholar
22Kerin, J, Daykhovsky, L, Segalowitz, J et al. Falloposcopy: a microendoscopic technique for visual exploration of the human fallopian tube from the uterotubal ostium to the fimbria using a transvaginal approach. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Kerin, JF, Williams, DB, San, Roman GA, Pearlstone, AC, Grundfest, WS, Surrey, ES. Falloposcopic classification and treatment of fallopian tube lumen disease. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 731–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Gürgan, T, Urman, B, Yarali, H, Aksu, T, Kisnisci, HA. Salpingoscopic findings in women with occlusive and nonocclusive salpingitis isthmica nodosa. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 461–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Bowman, MC, Cooke, ID. Comparison of fallopian tube intraluminal pathology as assessed by salpingoscopy with pelvic adhesions. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 464–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Marana, R, Muzii, L, Rizzi, M, Dell'Acqua, S, Mancuso, S. Prognostic role of laparoscopic salpingoscopy of the only remaining tube after contralateral ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 303–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Marana, R, Muzii, L, Rizzi, M, Luciano, A, Dell'Acqua, S, Mancuso, S. Salpingoscopy in patients with contralateral ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1991; 55: 838–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Marconi, G, Auge, L, Sojo, E, Young, E, Quintana, R. Salpingoscopy: systematic use in diagnostic laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 742–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Maguiness, SD, Djahanbakhch, O. Salpingoscopic findings in women undergoing sterilization. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 269–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society: Classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubai occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian abnormalities and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 944–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Boer-Meisel, ME, Te, Yelde ER, Habbema, JDF, Kardaum, JWPF. Predicting the pregnancy outcome in patients treated for hydrosalpinx: a prospective study. Fertil Steril 1986; 45: 23–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Dubuisson, JB, Chapron, C, Morice, P, Aubriot, FX, Foulot, H, Bouquet de Jolinière, J. Laparoscopie salpingostomy: fertility results according to the tubal mucosal appearance. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 334–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Mage, G, Pouly, JL, Bouquet de Jolinière, J, Chabran, S, Riouallon, A, Bruhat, MA. A preoperative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopie pregnancy rates after distal microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1986; 46: 807–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Vasquez, G, Boeckx, W, Brosens, I. Prospective study of tubai lesions and fertility in hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 1075–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35De Bruyne, F, Puttemans, P, Boeckx, W, Brosens, I. The clinical value of salpingoscopy in tubal infertility. Fertil Steril 1989; 53: 339–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Marana, R, Muscatello, P, Muzii, L, Vanzetto, M, Dell'Acqua, S, Mancuso, S. Perlaparascopic salpingoscopy in the evaluation of the tubal factor in infertile women. Int J Fertil 1990; 35: 211–14.Google ScholarPubMed
37Andersen, AN, Yue, Z, Meng, FJ, Petersen, K. Low implantation rate after in vitro fertilization in patients with hydrosalpinges diagnosed by ultrasonogra-phy. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 1935–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Kassabji, M, Sims, JA, Butler, L, Muasher, SJ. Reduced pregnancy outcome in patients with unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinx after in vitro fertilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994; 56: 129–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Poe-Zeigler, R, Shelton, K, Toner, JP, Oehninger, S, Muasher, SJ. Salpingectomy(ies) improves the pregnancy rate after IVF in patients with unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinx. J Assist Reprod Genet 1995; 12: PS 6–5.Google Scholar
40Sims, JA, Jones, D, Butler, L, Muasher, SJ. Effect of hydrosalpinx on outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF). American Fertility Society Meeting, October 11–14, 1993, Montreal, Abstract P-032, p. S95.Google Scholar
41Vandromme, J, Chasse, E, Lejeune, B, Van Rysselberge, M, Delvigne, A, Leroy, F. Hydrosalpinges in in vitro fertilization: an unfavourable prognostic feature. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 576–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Verhulst, G, Vandersteen, N, Van Steirteghem, C, Devroey, P. Bilateral salping-ectomy does not compromise ovarian stimulation in an in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer programme. Human Reprod 1994; 9: 624–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed