World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

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


To Evaluate the Efficacy of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgical Management of the Tubal Pregnancy and its Effects on Future Pregnancy

Amardeep Bhimrao Tembhare

Citation Information : Tembhare AB. To Evaluate the Efficacy of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgical Management of the Tubal Pregnancy and its Effects on Future Pregnancy. World J Lap Surg 2010; 3 (3):153-158.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10007-1103

Published Online: 01-04-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2010; The Author(s).



In the treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy (EP), laparoscopic surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment (Cochrane Database 2007). In the absence of randomized data, the question as to whether surgical treatment should be performed either conservatively (salpingostomy) or radically (salpingectomy) in women with desire for future pregnancy is subject to ongoing debate (Mol et al 2008).

Since the first study demonstrated the potential effectiveness of salpingostomy, this treatment has been compared with salpingectomy in numerous nonrandomized studies (Stromme et al 1962, Mol et al 2008). Pooled data showed no beneficial effect of salpingostomy on intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) whereas there is an increased risk of repeat EP (Clausen 1996, Yao et al 1997, Mol et al 2008). Based on these findings, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guideline advises salpingectomy as the preferred standard surgical approach for tubal EP (RCOG 2004). However, there are good reasons to question this advice. Interpretation of the pooled data is troublesome, since many of the original studies failed to report essential details, e.g. time to pregnancy, presence of the desire for future pregnancy, and whether subsequent pregnancies occurred either spontaneously or after fertility treatment, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF). Only a few nonrandomized studies have taken these matters into account and came to different conclusions (Silva et al 1993, Job spira et al 1996, Mol et al 1998, Bouyer et al 2000, Bangsgaard et al 2003, Tahseen et al 2003, Mol et al 2008). The IUP rates were higher and the time to an IUP was shorter after salpingostomy compared to salpingectomy. Especially in women with history of bilateral tubal pathology, salpingostomy offered better IUP rates than salpingectomy, albeit at the cost of an increased risk for repeat EP (Silva et al 1993, Job spira et al 1996, Mol et al 1998, Bangsgaard et al 2003, Mol et al 2008). In women without history of tubal pathology, this benefit was less clear and also in these women there was an increased risk of repeat EP (Mol et al 1998, Mol et al 2008). In view of these data, it has been felt that the most effective type of surgery for women with a tubal EP in the presence of contralateral tubal pathology with desire for future pregnancy is salpingostomy. In women without contralateral tubal pathology, the most optimal surgical treatment is currently unknown.

PDF Share
  1. Evaluation of predisposing factors of tubal pregnancy in multigravidas versus primigravidas. J Surg PIMS 2002;25:20-23.
  2. A study of 65 cases of ectopic pregnancy during one year period in military hospital. Pak Armed Forces Med J 2004;54:205-08.
  3. Improved fertility following conservative surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2003;110:765-70.
  4. Optimal treatment for patients with ectopic pregnancies and a history of fertilityreducing factors. Arch Gynecol Obstet Nov 2009;10.[Epub ahead of print] [Pubmed].
  5. Management of ectopic pregnancy. Tunis Med 2006;84:238-41.
  6. Fertility following radical, conservativesurgical or medical treatment for tubal pregnancy: A population-based study. BJOG 2000;107(6):714-21.
  7. Surgical management of ectopic pregnancy. Online 2005. Emedicine. [Cited 2005 Oct 27]. Available from: URL: 3316.htm-94k.
  8. Treatment of ectopic pregnancy by means of laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 1980;33:411.
  9. A comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71:889.
  10. Induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy in subsequent pregnancies. Am J Epidemiol 1982;115:879.
  11. Conservative versus radical surgery for tubal pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996;75:8-12. [Pubmed]
  12. Surgical management of unruptured ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1981;35:21.
  13. Glob. libr. women's med. (ISSN: 1756-2228) 2008; DOI 10.3843/GLOWM.10047, August 2008.
  14. Fertility after ectopic pregnancy J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). May 2010;15.
  15. Miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and trophoblastic disease. In: Edmonds DK. Dewhurst's textbook of obstetrics and gynaecology for postgraduates. (6th ed). Oxford: Blackwell Science 1999;61-75.
  16. Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007(1):CD000324.[Pubmed]
  17. Ectopic pregnancy. In: Dilmond E; Gilstrap. Operative obstetrics. New York: Appleton and Lange; 1995:437-56.
  18. Ectopic pregnancy. In: Textbook of gynaecology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders 1993;242-60.
  19. Fertility after ectopic pregnancy: First results of a population-based cohort study in France. Hum Reprod 1996;11:99-104.
  20. Introduction and results in the endoscopic treatment of extrauterine pregnancy 1990;112(8):467-73.
  21. Methotrexate with expectant management of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:775-78.
  22. Ovarian pregnancy and the intrauterine device. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1970;108:1005.
  23. Ectopic pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2000;263:87-92.
  24. Comparison of multidose and singledose methotrexate protocols for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192(6):1844-47.
  25. Diagnosis and management of ectopic pregnancy. Am Fam Physician 2005;72:1707-14.
  26. Salpingitis isthmica nodosa: A highrisk factor for tubal pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1983;62:73.
  27. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1804-09.
  28. ESEP study: Salpingostomy versus salpingectomy for tubal ectopic pregnancy; The impact on future fertility: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Women's Health 2008,8:11 doi:10.1186/1472-6874-8-11.
  29. Salpingectomy by operative laparoscopy and subsequent reproductive performance. Human Reprod. Jan. 1994;9(1):83-86.
  30. Conservative laparoscopic treatment of 321 ectopic pregnancies. Fertil Steril 1986;46:1093.
  31. The management of ectopic pregnancy. In Guideline No. 21. RCOG Press; 2004.
  32. Suspecting ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:399-413.
  33. Excision of an ectopic pregnancy through the laparoscope. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973;117:290.
  34. Reproductive outcome after 143 laparoscopic procedures for ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1993;81:710-15.
  35. A randomized trial of comparing single dose systemic methotrexate and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of unruptured tubal pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2001;108:192-203.
  36. Conservative surgery for ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1962;19:294-301. [Pubmed]
  37. Modern management in ectopic pregnancy, Current obstetricians and gynecology 1998;8:27-31.
  38. A comparative case controlled study of laparoscopic versus laparotomic management for ectopic pregnancy: An evaluation of reproductive performance after radical versus conservative treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;23:189-90.
  39. Five cases of extrauterine pregnancy operated upon at the time of pregnancy. Br Med J 1:1884;1250.
  40. Royal college of obstetricians and gynecologists guidelines 2004;21:1-10.
  41. Outcome of pregnancy in women using an intrauterine device. Lancet 1974;1:495.
  42. Proportionate morbidity and risk factors of ectopic pregnancy. Ann King Edward Med Coll 2004;10:298-300.
  43. Incidence trends, and risks of ectopic pregnancy in a population of women. Br Med J (Clin Res) 282;15:1981.
  44. Female sterilization and subsequent ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1980;55:17.
  45. Current status of surgical and nonsurgical management of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1997;67:421-33. [Pubmed]
  46. Outcome and relevant factors of tubal pregnancy treated with laparoscopic conservative surgery Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi: Feb.2010;45(2):84-88.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.