| Literature DB >> 26985337 |
Emaduldin Mostafa Seyam1, Momen Mohamed Hassan1, Mohamed Tawfeek Mohamed Sayed Gad1, Hazem Salah Mahmoud2, Mostafa Gamal Ibrahim2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current research to the best of my knowledge is the first to compare the pregnancy outcome between ultrasound-guided tubal recanalization (UGTR) using a special fallopian tubal catheter, and office-based micrhysteroscopic ostial dilatation (MHOD) using the same tubal catherter in infertile women with previously diagnosed bilateral proximal tubal obstruction (PTO).Entities:
Keywords: Fallopian Tube; Fertility; Hysteroscopy
Year: 2015 PMID: 26985337 PMCID: PMC4793170 DOI: 10.22074/ijfs.2015.4608
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Fertil Steril ISSN: 2008-0778
Fig.1Two soft malleable fiberoptic microhysteroscopes with diameter of 2-mm used. The upper part is a telescope with operative channel of 0-degree and diameter of 2-mm. The lower part is a telescope with operative channel of 30-degree and diameter of 2-mm. The middle part includes the diagnostic sheath of the microhysteroscopic telescope.
Fig.2The cannula used and the ultrasound images of the ultrasound-guided tubal recanalization of proximal tubal obstruction (PTO): A. Cook’s catheter loaded with the guide wire, B. Cook’s catheter after exposure of the loaded guide wire, C. Ultrasound image of successful passage of the catheter within the right tube, D. Ultrasound image of successful passage of the catheter within the left tube and E. Ultrasound image of hydrotubation using saline and air after successfully recanalizing the proximaly blocked tube.
Fig.3These images are produced after the combination of micrhysteroscopic and microlaparoscopic ostial recanalization for proximal tubal obstruction (PTO): A. Tip of the ureteric catheter directs to the visualized ostial opening, B. Catheter successfully cannulates within the tubal lumen, C. Microlaparoscopic image shows the picture of the cannulated tube and D. Microlaparoscopic image shows the appearance of the tip of the Cook’s catheter beyond the fimbrial ostium after successful recanalization.
Numbers of successful and unsuccessful recanalized tubes after the two studies procedures
| Procedure | ||
|---|---|---|
| UGTR (n=100) | MHOC (n=100) | |
| Tubes successfully recanalized | 140 (70%) | 150 (75%) |
| Bilaterally | 40 (23.5%) | 50 (26.3%) |
| Unilaterally | 130 (65%) | 140 (70%) |
| Tubes unsuccessfully recanalized | 30 (15%) | 10 (5%) |
UGTR; Ultrasound guided tubal recanalization and MHOC; Microhysteroscopic ostial cannulation.
Comparison of pregnancy outcome between both studied procedures for tubal recanalization
| Pregnancy Outcome | UGTR | MHOD |
|---|---|---|
| CPR after 6 months | 20% (n=17) | 21% (n=20) |
| CPR after 12 months | 25.9% (n=22) | 26.3% (n=25) |
| CPR after bilateral TR | 25% (n=5) | 32% (n=8) |
| CPR after unilateral TR | 26.1% (n=17) | 29.3% (n=23) |
| Spontaneous pregnancy | 22% (n=5) | 40% (n=10) |
| Ectopic pregnancy | 13% (n=3) | 8% (n=2) |
CPR; Cumulative pregnancy rate, UGTR; Ultrasound guided tubal recanalization, MHOD; Micrhysteroscopic ostial dlilatation and TR: Tubal recanlaization.