Competing Endoscopic Surgeries in the Era of Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Evidence and Practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17140/GOROJ-4-140Keywords:
Endoscopic reproductive surgeries, Assisted reproductive technologies, In Vitro fertilisation/Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI)Abstract
Now-a-days the assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are progressing and advancing rapidly. Many reproductive medicine specialists do believe in ART to be the first choice for infertile women regardless of age related issues while gynecologists do believe in reproductive surgery as basic treatment option for these patients. Debate is still unsolved between reproductive surgery or ART which is the first choice for management of infertility. Many issues increase the complexity of the debate as age of infertile patient, ovarian reserve and previous management whether surgery or ART. In this review, both aspects were discussed to clear some aspects of this debate. The objective of this review is to highlight this debate and mention the aspects which help gynecologists and reproductive surgeons to choose the best for infertile patients.
References
Tulandi T, Akkour K. Role of reproductive surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012; 26(6): 747-755. doi: 10.1016/j.bpob-gyn.2012.04.003
Cholkeri-Singh A, Sasaki KJ. Hysteroscopy for infertile women: A review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(3): 353- 362. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.12.163
Dechanet C, Rihaoui S, Reyftmann L, Hedon B, Hamamah S, Dechaud H. Endometriosis and fertility: Results after surgery and assisted reproductive technology. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2011; 39(1): 3-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2010.08.018
Daniilidis A, Balaouras D, Chitzios D, Theodoridis T, As-simakopoulos E. Hydrosalpinx: Tubal surgery or in vitro fertilisation? An everlasting dilemma nowadays; a narra-tive review. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017; 37(5): 550-556. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2017.1287685
Johnson N, van Voorst S, Sowter MC, Strandell A, Mol BW. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; 1: CD002125. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002125
Noventa M, Gizzo S, Saccardi C, et al. Salpingectomy be-fore assisted reproductive technologies: A systematic literature review. J Ovarian Res. 2016, 3; 9(1): 74. doi: 10.1186/s13048- 016-0284-1
Gomel V. The place of reconstructive tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive techniques. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015; 31(6): 722-731. doi: 10. 1016/ j.rbmo .2015.09.010
Honoré G, Holden A, Schenken R. Pathophysiology and man-agement of proximal tubal blockage. Fertil Steril. 1999; 71: 785-795. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00014-X
Allahbadia G, Merchant R. Fallopian tube recanalization: Lessons learnt and future challenges. Womens Health. 2010; 6: 531-548. doi: 10.2217/whe.10.34
Schepens JJ, Mol BW, Wiegerinck MA, Houterman S, Koks CA. Pregnancy outcomes and prognostic factors from tubal ster-ilization reversal by sutureless laparoscopical re-anastomosis: A retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26: 354-359. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq326
Hirshfeld-Cytron J, Winter J. Laparoscopic tubal reanasto-mosis versus in vitro fertilization: Cost-based decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209(1): 56.e1-56.e6. doi: 10.1016/j. ajog.2013.04.018
van Seeters JA, Chua SJ, Mol BW, Koks CA. Tubal anas-tomosis after previous sterilization: A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2017: 1-13. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmx003
Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: Surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod. 2007; 22(10): 2660-2664.
Bosteels J, Kasius J, Weyers S, Broekmans FJ, Mol BW, D’Hooghe TM. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Da-tabase Syst Rev. 2015; (2): CD009461. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD009461
Oliveira FG, Abdelmassih VG, Diamond MP, Dozortsev D, Nagy ZP, Abdelmassih R. Uterine cavity findings and hystero-scopic interventions in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization– embryo transfer who repeatedly cannot conceive. Fertil Steril. 2003; 80(6): 1371-1375. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.05.003
Hinckley MD, Milki AA. 1000 office-based hysteroscopies prior to in vitro fertilization: Feasibility and findings. JSLS. 2004; 8(2): 103-107.
Doldi N, Persico P, Di SF, et al. Pathologic findings in hys-teroscopy before in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Gynecol Endocrinol. 2005; 21: 235-237. doi: 10.1080/ 09513590500366696
Rama Raju GA, Shashi KG, Krishna KM, Prakash GJ, Madan K. Assessment of uterine cavity by hysteroscopy in assisted re-production programme and its influence on pregnancy outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006; 274: 160-164. doi: 10.1007/s00404- 006-0174-7
Lorusso F, Ceci O, Bettocchi S, et al. Office hysteroscopy in an in vitro fertilization program. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2008; 24: 465-469. doi: 10.1080/09513590802246232
Bozdag G, Aksan G, Esinler I, Yarali H. What is the role of office hysteroscopy in women with failed IVF cycles? Re-prod Biomed Online. 2008; 17: 410-415. doi: 10.1016/S1472- 6483(10)60226-X
Cholkeri-Singh A, Sasaki KJ. Hysteroscopy for infertile women: A review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(3): 353- 362. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.12.163
Negm SM, Kamel RA, Abuhamila FA. Three-dimensional sonohysterography compared with vaginoscopic hysteroscopy for evaluation of the uterine cavity in patients with recurrent im-plantation failure in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012; 19: 503-508.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in Gynecology and Obstetrics Research (GOR) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.
