alexa Ovarian Performance after Laparoscopic Salpingectomy or Proximal Tubal Division for Hydrosalpinx | OMICS International
ISSN: 2161-0932
Gynecology & Obstetrics

Like us on:

Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Ovarian Performance after Laparoscopic Salpingectomy or Proximal Tubal Division for Hydrosalpinx

Ebtesam M Kamel*

Faculty of medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt

Corresponding Author:
Ebtesam M Kamel
Assistant professor
Faculty of medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt
E-mail: [email protected]

Received Date: May 16, 2012; Accepted Date: July 01, 2012; Published Date: July 10, 2012

Citation: Kamel EM (2012) Ovarian Performance after Laparoscopic Salpingectomy or Proximal Tubal Division for Hydrosalpinx. Gynecol Obstet 2:124. doi: 10.4172/2161-0932.1000124

Copyright: © 2012 Kamel EM. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effect of laparoscopic salpingectomy and proximal fallopian tubes division on ovarian function after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Methods: Seventy six patients undergoing their first IVF-ET cycle were divided into (group 1) 20 patients undergoing laparoscopic salpingectomy, (group 2) 19 patients undergoing proximal tubal division and (group 3) 37 tubal-factor patients without hydrosalpinx as control group. Main outcome measure (s): Ovarian artery pulsatility index (PI), basal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels before and after surgery, operative time, total dose and duration of IVF stimulation, number of retrieved and fertilized oocyte, and number of embryo transferred. Result (s): No significant differences in mean ovarian artery pulsatility indices among any of the groups before or after surgery. The mean FSH value was similar before and after laparoscopic proximal tubal division. The FSH value significantly increased after laparoscopic salpingectomy. The operative time in the PTD group was significantly shorter than in the salpingectomy group, total dose and duration of stimulation, number of retrived and fertilized oocyte, were not significantly different between group 1, group 2 or control group. Conclusion (s): Laparoscopic salpingectomy or proximal tubal division gives similar responses to IVF-ET cycles. However, proximal tubal division preserved ovarian function.

Keywords

Laparoscopy; Hydrosalpinx; Salpingectomy; Proximal tubal division; In vitro fertilization

Introduction

Tubal disease, particularly hydrosalpinx, has a detrimental effect on in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcome [1]. Although, prophylactic salpingectomy for large hydrosalpinges could improve pregnancy and live birth rate in women undergoing IVF [2], the effect of salpingectomy on ovarian function remains a matter of debate. Decreased ovarian response ipsilateral to the site of salpingectomy were shown in one study [3], in other study no significant differences in the response to ovarian stimulation before and after salpingectomy were noted when patients were used as their own controls [4]. Due to the close anatomical association of vascular and nervous supply of tubes and ovaries, partial disruption of ovarian blood supply is possible after unilateral or bilateral salpingectomy [5]. Standell et al. [4] recommended cautious use of electrocautery, with resection very close to the actual tube to avoid damage to the medial tubal artery, and to leave a portion of an adherent tube on the ovary rather than performing unnecessary radical salpingectomy. In cases where it would be difficult to perform the salpingectomy close to the fallopian tube, Lass recommended clamping the proximal part of the hydrosalpinx in combination with distal fenestration [6]. In recent years, laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion procedure was performed more often. This study compare the effect of laparoscopic salpingectomy with proximal tubal division on ovarian function assessed as ovarian response to IVF treatment for infertility patient with hydrosalpinx.

Patients and Methods

This prospective non randomized controlled study was conducted in laparoscopy and assisted reproductive units of Zagazig University Hospital, Egypt, between July 2008 and November 2009. Inclusion criteria were nulliparous women under 39 years old during their first IVF-ET cycle, cycle day 3 serum FSH level <10 mIU/mL, estradiol (E2) level <80 pg/mL, and normal diagnostic hysteroscopy performed 6 months before the IVF-ET cycle. All patients underwet transvaginal ultrasound examination and hysterosalpingoraphy using an oil-based radiographic contrast agent.

The presence of hydrosalpinges was diagnosed before laparoscopic surgery, and the diagnosis of was confirmed at the time of laparoscopy.

Exclusion criteria were previous salpingectomy, history of unilateral or bilateral ovarian cystectomy, and patients with mixed tubal surgery (i.e., salpingectomy on one side and tubal division, adhesiolysis or salpingostomy on the other side). Patients with mixed infertility factors and those who had hydrosalpinges less than 3 cm were also excluded from the study.

Patients were divided into three groups (Group A) included 20 patients undergoing laparoscopic salpingectomy unilateral or bilateral, (Group B) 19 patients undergoing tubal division unilateral or bilateral and (Group C) 37 patients with bilateral tubal blockage (i.e., tubal infertility) at laparoscopy and/or hystero-salpingography without evidence of hydrosalpinges as a control group. The decision to perform either salpingectomy or tubal division was left to the surgeon.

Laparoscopic salpingectomy was performed using fine-point unipolar and bipolar cautery and CO2 laser. Adhesiolysis was performed, if necessary. The mesosalpinx was transected just below the fallopian tube to minimize any compromise to the collateral blood supply of the ipsilateral ovary. The fallopian tube was transected 1-1.5 cm from the cornual region. Proximal tubal occlusion was performed using bipolar cautery applied at two sites separated by approximately 1 cm on the isthmic portion of the affected tube, and the hydrosalpinx was not drained.

Ovarian stimulation protocol

All women were treated according to a standardized long stepdown ovarian stimulation protocol. Pituitary down regulation was achieved using GnRH agonist triptorelin (Decapeptyle, Ferring, Keil Germany) in all patients as a subcutaneous dose of (0.1 mg) daily starting in the midluteal phase of the preceding menstrual cycle. The initial dose of hMG (Fostimone, 75 IU Ibsa, Switzerland) 3 to 6 IM ampules of urinary FSH was individualized according to the patient’s age and response. Baseline serum FSH, Serum E2 concentrations were measured on day 3 of ovarian stimulation and then repeated daily or every other day according to the individual’s response to stimulation. Transvaginal ultrasound scan was arranged routinely on day 8 and day 10 of ovarian stimulation and every 2 days thereafter. When at least three follicles reached a mean diameter of ≥18 mm, hCG human chorionic gonadotropin 10,000 IU (Choriomon, Ibsa Switzerland) was administered.

Assessment of ovarian response and pregnancy outcome

Serum FSH and E2 concentrations were measured before surgery and 3 months after surgery but before commencing ovarian stimulation. Ovarian response to stimulation was calculated as the total dose and duration of hMG administration, the number of retrieved and fertilized oocytes, number of embryo transferred and serum E2 concentrations on the day of hCG administration. Bilateral Ovarian artery mean pulsatility index (PI) was assessed using pulsed wave directed color Doppler before and after surgery.

Statistical analysis

Data are presented as mean ± SD. Differences between groups were tested using one way ANOVA, χ2-test, and calculation of the Z-ratio as appropriate. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 15.0, Chicago) was used for statistical analysis. P<0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The baseline clinical data and outcome of the first treatment cycle for group A, B and group C were shown in Table 1, the three groups were comparable for age, ovarian artery pulsatilty index and basal FSH levels. Groups A and B were comparable for the percentage of unilateral and bilateral surgical procedures, and for ovarian artery pulsatility index after surgery. The operative time in (Group B) was significantly shorter than that of (Group A) (80.2 ± 11.5 min vs. 113.3 ± 25.0 min, P=0.07). Serum FSH levels were significantly higher in group A compared with group B after laparoscopic surgery, (P<0.05). The FSH levels were significantly higher after surgery than before surgery in group A (P=0.02) while, in the group B, the FSH level after laparoscopic surgery were comparable to those before surgery (P=0.479).

  Salpingectomy group PTD group Control group P-Value
Age (years) 34.4 ± 3.6 32.7 ± 6.3 31.7 ± 2.7 0.23
Unilateral surgery % 11/20 9/19 - 0.33
Bilateral surgery % 9/20 10/19 - 0.34
Basal FSH level before surgery 7.0 ± 3.8 8.1 ± 1.1 6.6 ± 2.3 0.42
Basal FSH level after surgery 15.3 ± 8.4a 9.0±4.3 6.7 ± 2.3 0.002b
Operative time (min) 113.3 ± 25.0 80.2 ± 11.5 - 0.07c
Ovarian artery PI (before surgery) 1.24 ± 0.76 1.47 ± 0.68 1.31 ± 0.58 0.13
Ovarian artery PI (after surgery) 1.06 ± 0.55 1.33 ± 0.61 1.28 ± 0.58 0.24

Table 1: Baseline clinical and post surgery data for patients included in the study.

The responses to COH in the three studied groups were summarized in Table 2. The required gonadotropin doses until oocyte retrieval, duration of stimulation, number of retrived and fertilized oocytes and estradiol level on hCG administration in were comparable between the three groups with no statistically significant difference in each parameter.

  Salpingectomy group PTD group Control group P value
Total dose of hMG (ampoules) 23.3 ± 2.7 22.2 ± 3.4 24.1 ± 3.9 0.013
Duration of hMG stimulation (days) 9.5 ± 0.2 9.3 ± 0.4 10.1 ± 0.3 0.22
E2 on day of hCG (pmol/L) 2,556 ± 219 2,366 ± 282 2,921 ± 257 0.26
No. of oocytes retrieved 16.2 ± 1.2 17.5 ± 1.8 14.4 ± 1.3 0.11
No. of oocytes fertilized 12.87 ± 4.5 13.21 ± 4.7 11.8 ± 5.4 0.26
Number of embryo transferred 3.1 ± 0.5 3.3 ± 0.8 2.7 ± 1.0 0.17

Table 2: Response to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation in the studied groups.

Discussion

Inflammatory cytokines present within hydrosalpnix fluid may play an inhibitory role on IVF-ET cycle outcome [7]. Women with hydrosalpinges expressed significantly less ? vb3 integrin, a presumptive marker of endometrial receptivity, than fertile controls [8]. Also, it has been demonstrated that HOXA10 expression, necessary for implantation, decreased in response to hydrosalpinx fluid and this was a potential molecular mechanism for diminished implantation rates. Salpingectomy restored endometrial HOXA10 expression [9]. Recently, the leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) expression in the endometrium was found to be significantly lower in infertile women with hydrosalpinges compared with fertile controls, and these levels were increased following salpingectomy [10]. Thus it is not the presence of hydrosalpinges, but the influx of hydrosalpinx fluid into the uterine cavity that could had a negative impact on endometrial receptivity of the embryo.

The risk of chronic infection, torsion and decrease in access to the ovary at oocyte aspiration may be also increased if a hydrosalpinx was left in situ .Thus prophylactic salpingectomy had been performed in hydrosalpinx patients before IVF-ET in an effort to eliminate the retrograde flow of potentially embryotoxic substances, with the majority of studies, demonstrating benefit of salpingectomy in enhancing IVFET cycle implantation and pregnancy rates over historic controls [1,2]. On the other hand this procedure is clearly invasive and may become technically difficult in the face of extensive pelvic adhesions, with an increased potential for injury to surrounding structures. In addition, transection of the tube too close to the cornua may also increase the risk of an interstitial pregnancy after embryo transfer, a devastating complication [11,12].

Several recent reports have indicated that patients who underwent salpingectomy showed no impairment of ovarian stimulation for ART treatment [2,13,14]. On the other hand, Lass et al. reported that a significant reduction in the number of developed follicles and retrieved oocytes were noted from the ovary ipsilateral to which a unilateral salpingectomy had been performed [3]. A theoretical decrease in ovarian blood perfusion may result after the saplingectomy, once some of the blood supply to the ovary is received through the branches of the uterine artery and the mesosaplingeal vascular arcade. Thus, bilateral salpingectomy could diminish ovarian function. In the rat model, a reduction in ovarian blood supply may have had a direct effect on ovulatory function [15] whereas in the rabbit model, fimbriectomy resulted in a reduced number of corpus luteum [16].

Proximal tubal occlusion represents a significantly less invasive approach that requires less surgical dissection and operative time while still eliminating retrograde flow of hydrosalpingeal fluid into the endometrial cavity. In one study the clinical impact of proximal tubal occlusion and salpingectomy was evaluated before IVF in patients with hydrosalpinges [17]. The implantation, clinical-pregnancy, and ongoing-pregnancy rates were comparable to in those who underwent salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion. Moreover, the approach and method of laparoscopic proximal division of fallopian tubes was easier and safer than laparoscopic salpingectomy.

In this study, we found that management of hydrosalpinges by laparoscopic salpingectomy or proximal tubal division gives similar response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation but when comparing baseline presurgery with postsurgery serum FSH levels, the latter were significantly raised in the salpingectomy group. Thus salpingectomy may have a negative effect on ovarian reserve, compared with tubal division or no surgery.

Our results runs in agreement with a recent study which found that laparoscopic proximal tubal division preserved ovarian function and were an optimal operative method for infertility patients with hydrosalpinges. As the basal FSH values after laparoscopic proximal tubal division were comparable to those before surgery [18]. Also, the operative time in the PTD group was significantly shorter than that of the salpingectomy group, because the severe adhesion and large hydrosalpinges lengthened the operative time.

In a study done by Gelbaya et al. [5] the baseline FSH levels were significantly raised post surgery compared to pre-surgery, and post surgery FSH concentrations were significantly higher in the salpingectomy group when compared to the division of fallopian tubesgroup in agreement with our result. However, in their study the number of retrieved oocytes in the salpingectomy group was significantly lower when compared to the division of fallopian tubes group. Our result showed that IVF cycle outcomes were unaffected by salpingectomy as a great care was taken to transect the mesosalpinx just below the fallopian tube in an effort to minimize compromise to collateral ovarian blood supply. A more extensive transaction of the mesosalpinx could have a deleterious effect.

Also, in their study patients with mixed infertility factors were included and this could affect the response to stimulation.

Conclusion

Surgical management of hydrosalpinges by either laparoscopic salpingectomy or proximal tubal division gives statistically similar responses to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation. However, salpingectomy in women with hydrosalpinx may not be without reproductive risks. So, laparoscopic proximal division of fallopian tubes should be recommended for the treatment of hydrosalpinges rather than laparoscopic salpingectomy, especially for ovarian reserve and safety.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

  • 7th International Conference on Clinical and Medical Case Reports June 01-02, 2018 Osaka, Japan Theme: Focusing the breakthroughs of case reports in Clinical & Medical Research
    June 01-02, 2018 Osaka, Japan
  • 7th International Conference and Exhibition on Surgery June 21-23, 2018 Dublin, Ireland Theme: Advancements and Endeavours in the Field of Surgery
    June 21-23, 2018 Dublin, Ireland Dublin, Ireland
  • Annual Congress on Research and Innovations in Medicine July 02-03, 2018 Bangkok, Thailand Theme: Current Research and Innovations in Medicine to Improve Human Health
    July 02-03, 2018 Bangkok, Thailand
  • International Conference on Medical and Health Science August 24-25, 2018 Tokyo, JAPAN Theme: Scrutinize the Modish of Medical and Health Science
    August 24-25, 2018 Tokyo, Japan
  • World Summit on Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery Sep 10-11, 2018 Singapore Theme: Expanding new horizons in Trauma and Surgery
    Sep 10-11, 2018 Singapore City, Singapore
  • 6th American Gynecological Surgery Conference September 28-29, 2018 San Antonio | Texas | USA
    September 28-29, 2018 San Antonio, USA
  • World Congress on Fetal and Maternal Medicine October 15-17, 2018 Osaka, Japan Theme: A New Beginning on Fetal, Maternal & Neonatal Medicine
    October 15-17, 2018 Osaka, Japan
  • International Conference on Reproduction and Fertility October 18-19, 2018 Abu Dhabi, UAE
    October 18-19, 2018 Abu Dhabi, UAE

Article Usage

  • Total views: 12661
  • [From(publication date):
    August-2012 - May 22, 2018]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8874
  • PDF downloads : 3787
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2018-19
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2018 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
Leave Your Message 24x7