World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 3 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2010 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Hydrosalpinx: Functional Surgery or Salpingectomy

Nomonde D Gumata

Citation Information : Gumata ND. Hydrosalpinx: Functional Surgery or Salpingectomy. World J Lap Surg 2010; 3 (3):145-150.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10007-1101

Published Online: 01-12-2010

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2010; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background

Hydrosalpinx is a common cause of female infertility1 and adversely affects the outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Although IVF is the main treatment, alternative treatments, such as salpingectomy and functional tubal surgery have been suggested.2 Previously, hydrosalpinx was diagnosed using tubal patency tests (transvaginal ultrasound, TVUS; hysterosalpingography, HSG; and laparoscopy), which do not assess tubal function hydrosalpinx, and salpingectomy was the main surgical treatment for hydrosalpinx prior to IVF.3 However, with modern tubal endoscopy (salpingoscopy and fertiloscopy)4-7 and their ability to assess tubal functional mucosa, functional tubal surgery can be considered for thin-walled hydrosalpinx and a healthy mucosa and salpingectomy performed for thin-walled hydrosalpinx with mucosal adhesions and thick-walled hydrosalpinx with absent mucosal folds.8

Aims and objectives

The aim of the review is to highlight the use of appropriate tubal function tests to help in making a choice between either salpingectomy or functional tubal surgery as the treatment for hydrosalpinges.

Materials and methods

A literature search was performed using the search engine Google, HighWire press, PubMed and SpringerLink. Selected papers were taken for further references. All articles, including randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included for the review.

Results

Vasquez et al8 suggested that mucosal adhesions are the most important factors in determining fertility outcomes especially in thin-walled hydrosalpinges. Several studies on hydrosalpinges have also shown that the absence of mucosal adhesions on salpingoscopy can identify patients who can benefit from advantages offered by reconstructive surgery.3-7 Boer Meisel et al9 showed that patients with thin-walled hydrosalpinges and well preserved mucosa had an intrauterine pregnancy rate of 77% and a tubal pregnancy rate of 4% following reconstructive surgery.9 Vasquez et al8 in their prospective study showed that thin-walled hydrosalpinges with a normal or flattened mucosa, but without mucosal adhesions were associated with a 58% pregnancy rate and low risk of tubal pregnancy.8 Their study also found that thick-walled hydrosalpinges with mucosal adhesions have a statistically significant lower intrauterine pregnancy rate.8 Dechaud et al10 showed that salpingectomy for thick-walled hydrosalpinges improved the outcome of IVF.

Conclusion

An appropriate tubal mucosal assessment should be a routine prior to deciding upon further management of hydrosalpinx. Functional tubal surgery should be preferred in mild forms of hydrosalpinx and salpingectomy reserved for severe forms of hydrosalpinx.


PDF Share
  1. Laparoscopic management of hydrosalpinx. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007;1092:199-210.
  2. Hydrosalpinxfunctional surgery or salpingectomy. Hum Reprod 2000;15(7):1427-30.
  3. Prospective evaluation of falloposcopy. Hum Reprod 1998b;13:1815-18.
  4. Salpingoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod 1987;2:535-40.
  5. Fallopian tube disease: The cobblestone pattern as a radiographic sign. Radiol 2000;217:521-25.
  6. The prognostic role of salpingoscopy in laparoscopic tubal surgery. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2991-95.
  7. Micro-endoscopy of the human fallopian tube. J Am Gynecol Laparosc 1999;6:383-89.
  8. Prospective study of tubal mucosal lesions and infertility in hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1075-78.
  9. Predicting the pregnancy outcome in patients treated for hydrosalpinx: A prospective study. Fertil Steril 1986;45:23-29.
  10. Hydrosalpinges suitable for salpingectomy before IVF. Hum Reprod 2000;16(12):2464-65.
  11. Controversies in the modern management of hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod Update 1998;4:882-90.
  12. Salpingectomy improves in vitro ferilization outcome in patients with a hydrosalpinx; blind victimization of fallopian tube. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2079-81.
  13. Surgical management of tubal disease. Obst gynaecol Reprod Med 2008;19(4):98-105.
  14. The predictive value of the ‘Hull and Rutherford’ classification for tubal damage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;111:123-41.
  15. Laparoscopy or laparotomy for distal tubal surgery? A meta-analysis. Hum Fertil 2007;10(1):43-47.
  16. Low implantation rates after IVF in patients with hydrosalpinges diagnosed by ultasonography. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1935-38.
  17. Deleterious effect of the presence of hydrosalpinx on implantation and pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1996;66:122-25.
  18. Hydrosalpinx reduces in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod 1994;9:861-63.
  19. Hydrosalpinges in in vitro fertilization; an unfavourable prognostic feature. Hum Reprod 1995;10:576-79.
  20. A prospective evaluation of the effect of salpingectomy on endometrial receptivity in cases of women with communicating hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod 2001;16(11):2422-26.
  21. Hydrosalpinx fluid has embryotoxic effect on murine embryogenesis: A case for prophylactic salpingectomy. Fertil Steril 1996;66:851-53.
  22. Endometrial fluid visualized through ultrasonography during ovarian stimulation in IVF cycles impairs the outcome in tubal factor but not PCOS patients. Hum Reprod 2005;20(4):906-09.
  23. Surgery for tubal infertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;1:1-12.
  24. Tubal surgery in the era of ART: clinical options. Hum Reprod 1999;14:120-36.
  25. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;20(1):CD002125.
  26. Removal of hydrosalpinges increases endometrial leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) expression at the time of the implantation window. Hum Reprod 2005;20(11):3012-17
  27. Laparoscopic salpingectomy for women with hydrosalpinges enhances the success of IVF: A Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2002;17(3):543-48.
  28. Proximal tubal occlusion and salpingectomy result in similar improvement in in vitro fertilization outcome in patients with hydrosalpinx. Fertil Steril 2006;86(6):1642-49.
  29. Salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of unilateral hydrosalpinx increases the potential for spontaneous pregnancy. Hum Reprod Dec 2003;18(12):2634-37.
  30. Salpingectomy prior to IVF can be recommended to a well-defined subgroup of patients. Hum Reprod 2000;15(10):2072-74.
  31. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: Cumulative results after salpingectomy in a randomized control trial. Hum Reprod 2001;16(11):2403-10.
  32. Salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of unilateral hydrosalpinx increases the potential for spontaneous pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2003;18(12):2634-37.
  33. An analysis of the outcome of microsurgical and laparoscopic adhesiolysis for infertility. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2887-95.
  34. Prognostic factors of fimbrial microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1986;46:200-04.
  35. NICE: Clinical guidelines 2004, http://www.rcog.org.uk .
  36. From microsurgery to laparoscopic surgery. Fertil Steril 1995;63:464-68.
  37. Salpingostomy by laparoscopy. J Reprod Med 1995;18:265-68.
  38. Techniques for pelvic surgery in subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;19(2):CD000221.
  39. Laparoscopic fimbrioplasy: An evaluation of 35 cases. Hum Reprod 1998;15:1496-99.
  40. Proximal tubal occlusion: Microsurgery versus IVF: A review. Int J Fertil 1988;3:334-40.
  41. Microsurgical reconstruction of proximal oviduct. Fertil Steril 1987;47:35-39.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.