Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Fertil Steril. 1984 Feb;41(2):229-32.

Comparison of the operating microscope and loupe for microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a randomized clinical trial.

Abstract

Reversal of sterilization was performed by microsurgical tubal anastomosis in 72 women using either loupe (n = 36) or microscope (n = 36). The study design called for the randomization of patients within pairs, which were matched for method of sterilization and site of anastomosis. A significant difference between methods could not be demonstrated at 12 months (P = 0.39) or 24 months (P = 0.37) after the procedure.

PIP:

This paper describes a randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare the efficacy of the loupe and the microscope in performing a microsurgical anastomosis of tubal segments other than the cornual-isthmic region. 72 women evaluated at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore between January 1, 1978 and December 31, 1980, for reversal of sterilization met the criteria for entry into the trial: under 36 years of age and at least 5 cm of oviduct remaining. The surgeon was informed of which device to use for magnification just prior to the procedure. The study design called for the randomization of patients within pairs, which were matched for method of sterilization and site of anastomosis. No significant differences were observed between the loupe and microscope groups in age, parity, or interval from sterilization to reversal. 75% of each group had had an ampullary-isthmic anastomosis, 22% of the loupe and 20% of the microscope group had had an amupllary-ampullary anastomosis, and 3% of the loupe and 6% of the microscope group had had an isthmic-isthmic anastomosis. At 12 and 24 months after the reversal procedures, no differences could be demonstrated between the groups with respect to total pregnancies, term pregnancies, spontaneous abortions, or ectopic pregnancies. 23 of 36 loup patients and 19 of 36 microscope patients had term pregnancies, but the differences were not significant.

PMID:
6365599
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Loading ...
    Support Center