OBJECTIVE: To describe the management of hydrosalpinges among Society for Reproduction Endocrinology and Infertility (SREI)/Society of Reproductive Surgeons (SRS) members. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of SREI/SRS members. SETTING: Academic and private practice-based reproductive medicine physicians. PARTICIPANT(S): A total of 442 SREI and/or SRS members. INTERVENTION(S): Internet-based survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): To understand how respondents evaluate, define, and manage hydrosalpinges. RESULT(S): Of 1,070 SREI and SRS members surveyed, 442 responded to all items, for a 41% response rate. Respondents represented both academic and private practice settings, and differences existed in the evaluation and management of hydrosalpinges. More than one-half (57%) perform their own hysterosalpingograms (HSGs), and 54.5% involve radiologists in their interpretation of tubal disease. Most respondents thought that a clinically significant hydrosalpinx on HSG is one that is distally occluded (80.4%) or visible on ultrasound (60%). Approximately one in four respondents remove a unilateral hydrosalpinx before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH)/intrauterine insemination (IUI) and clomiphene citrate (CC)/IUI (29.3% and 22.8%, respectively), and physicians in private practice were more likely to intervene (COH: risk ratio [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-2.51; CC: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.33-2.95). Although laparoscopic salpingectomy was the preferred method of surgical management, nearly one-half responded that hysteroscopic tubal occlusion should have a role as a primary method of intervention. CONCLUSION(S): SREI/SRS members define a "clinically significant hydrosalpinx" consistently, and actual practice among members reflects American Society for Reproductive Medicine/SRS recommendations, with variation attributed to individual patient needs. Additionally, one in four members intervene before other infertility treatments when there is a unilateral hydrosalpinx present.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the management of hydrosalpinges among Society for Reproduction Endocrinology and Infertility (SREI)/Society of Reproductive Surgeons (SRS) members. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of SREI/SRS members. SETTING: Academic and private practice-based reproductive medicine physicians. PARTICIPANT(S): A total of 442 SREI and/or SRS members. INTERVENTION(S): Internet-based survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): To understand how respondents evaluate, define, and manage hydrosalpinges. RESULT(S): Of 1,070 SREI and SRS members surveyed, 442 responded to all items, for a 41% response rate. Respondents represented both academic and private practice settings, and differences existed in the evaluation and management of hydrosalpinges. More than one-half (57%) perform their own hysterosalpingograms (HSGs), and 54.5% involve radiologists in their interpretation of tubal disease. Most respondents thought that a clinically significant hydrosalpinx on HSG is one that is distally occluded (80.4%) or visible on ultrasound (60%). Approximately one in four respondents remove a unilateral hydrosalpinx before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH)/intrauterine insemination (IUI) and clomiphene citrate (CC)/IUI (29.3% and 22.8%, respectively), and physicians in private practice were more likely to intervene (COH: risk ratio [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-2.51; CC: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.33-2.95). Although laparoscopic salpingectomy was the preferred method of surgical management, nearly one-half responded that hysteroscopic tubal occlusion should have a role as a primary method of intervention. CONCLUSION(S): SREI/SRS members define a "clinically significant hydrosalpinx" consistently, and actual practice among members reflects American Society for Reproductive Medicine/SRS recommendations, with variation attributed to individual patient needs. Additionally, one in four members intervene before other infertility treatments when there is a unilateral hydrosalpinx present.
Authors: Richard B Rosenfield; Rebecca E Stones; Alison Coates; Robert K Matteri; John S Hesla Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: K A Broeze; B C Opmeer; N Van Geloven; S F P J Coppus; J A Collins; J E Den Hartog; P J Q Van der Linden; P Marianowski; E H Y Ng; J W Van der Steeg; P Steures; A Strandell; F Van der Veen; B W J Mol Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Emily S Jungheim; Ginny L Ryan; Eric D Levens; Alexandra F Cunningham; George A Macones; Kenneth R Carson; Angeline N Beltsos; Randall R Odem Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2009-09-11 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Leah J Cooper; Benjamin R Emery; Kenneth Aston; Douglas Fair; Mitchell P Rosen; Erica Johnstone; Joseph M Letourneau Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2022-07-23 Impact factor: 3.357
Authors: Kenan Omurtag; Natalia M Grindler; Kimberly A Roehl; G Wright Bates; Angeline N Beltsos; Randall R Odem; Emily S Jungheim Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Kasey A Reynolds; Natalia M Grindler; Julie S Rhee; Amber R Cooper; Valerie S Ratts; Kenneth R Carson; Emily S Jungheim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 3.240