Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 May;283(5):1149-58. doi: 10.1007/s00404-011-1858-1. Epub 2011 Feb 18.

Tubal anastomosis after tubal sterilization: a review.

Author information

  • 1Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris-Sud, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, F-94274 Paris, France. xavier.deffieux@abc.aphp.fr

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To evaluate various techniques for restoring tubal patency after sterilisation.

METHODS:

A search strategy was designed, and for each subject either thesaurus terms (MeSH descriptors) or terms from the title or summary were used.

RESULTS:

Mean length of hospital stay following laparoscopy seems to be shorter in comparison with laparotomy (3.3 vs. 6.1 days, P < 0.05). Rate of conversion to laparotomy is 5%. Pregnancy rates observed are between 54 and 88% for laparotomy and 31-85% for laparoscopy. Mean time to conception was between 2 and 9.6 months. Most pregnancies occurred in the 2 years following restoration of tubal patency (cumulative conception rate 80% at 12 months). Young age (<35 years), type of ligature (rings), how recently the ligature was done (<8 years), the anastomosis site (in the middle of the tube) and a good length of remaining tube (>7 cm) are the factors that govern whether there can be good restoration of tubal patency. Ectopic pregnancy rates observed are between 1.7 and 12% for laparotomy and 0-7% for laparoscopy. There are no randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing tubal anastomosis and in vitro fertilization.

CONCLUSIONS:

There are few good-quality controlled studies in this area. Results of restoration of tubal patency seem to be comparable, regardless of the route of approach (laparotomy or laparoscopy).

PMID:
21331539
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk