MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Ovarian Response and in Vitro Fertilization Outcomes After Salpingectomy: Does Salpingectomy Indication Matter?
Author: Pereira N, Pryor KP, Voskuilen-Gonzalez A, Lekovich JP, Elias RT, Spandorfer SD, Rosenwaks Z.
Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2017; 24(3):446-454.e1. PubMed ID: 28069482.
Abstract:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the ovarian response and pregnancy outcomes of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) after salpingectomy are affected by the underlying indication for salpingectomy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). SETTING: University-affiliated fertility center. PATIENTS: All patients age <37 years undergoing IVF within 12 months of laparoscopic salpingectomy. The underlying indication for laparoscopic salpingectomy in the study cohort was tubal ectopic pregnancy, unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinx, or other reason (hematosalpinx or pyosalpinx), as confirmed by histopathology. INTERVENTIONS: IVF and embryo transfer (ET). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Surgical characteristics, demographics, ovarian stimulation parameters, total oocytes retrieved, fertilization rates, implantation rates, and clinical pregnancy rates were compared among the salpingectomy groups. Age- and time-matched patients undergoing their first IVF-ET cycle for male factor infertility, with no previous history of laparoscopy, served as controls. RESULTS: Of the 996 patients who underwent a laparoscopic procedure during the study period, 136 patients underwent unilateral salpingectomy for the following indications: 39 for ectopic pregnancy, 81 for unilateral hydrosalpinx, and 16 for other indications. Among these 136 patients, 29 in the ectopic pregnancy group, 75 in the unilateral hydrosalpinx group, and 10 in the "other" group underwent subsequent IVF-ET. Thirty-one patients underwent both bilateral salpingectomy and subsequent IVF-ET. There was no difference in the antral follicle counts before and after salpingectomy in all groups. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean duration of ovarian stimulation in the salpingectomy groups: ectopic pregnancy, 10.9 ± 2.15 days; unilateral hydrosalpinx, 9.56 ± 1.95 days; bilateral hydrosalpinx, 9.51 ± 2.01 days; "other", 9.89 ± 2.20 days; control, 9.76 ± 1.99 days. Similar trends were noted for total gonadotropins administered when comparing the ectopic pregnancy group (3375.9 ± 931.0 IU) with the remaining groups (unilateral hydrosalpinx, 2841.3 ± 1160.9 IU; bilateral hydrosalpinx, 2519.3 ± 1004.7 IU; "other", 2808.6 ± 990.1 IU; control, 2726.1 ± 1129.8 IU). There were no significant differences in the total number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, implantation rate, or clinical pregnancy rate in the salpingectomy groups compared with controls. CONCLUSION: Although our findings indicate that patients undergoing IVF after salpingectomy for an ectopic pregnancy have a statistically significantly longer duration of stimulation and require higher gonadotropin doses compared with patients undergoing IVF after salpingectomy for other indications, these differences are of limited clinical significance, given that the total number of oocytes retrieved, implantation rate, and clinical pregnancy rate among the different salpingectomy groups are comparable to those in controls.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]