Su Jen Chua1, Valentine A Akande2, Ben Willem J Mol3. 1. The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, SA5005. 2. Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Directorate of Women's Health, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Bristol, England, UK, BS10 5NB. 3. Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Level 3, Medical School South Building, Frome Road, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, SA 5005.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgery remains an acceptable treatment modality for tubal infertility despite the rise in usage of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Estimated livebirth rates after surgery range from 9% for women with severe tubal disease to 69% for those with mild disease; however, the effectiveness of surgery has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments such as IVF and expectant management (no treatment). Livebirth rates have not been adequately assessed in relation to the severity of tubal damage. It is important to determine the effectiveness of surgery against other treatment options in women with tubal infertility because of concerns about adverse outcomes, intraoperative complications and costs associated with tubal surgery, as well as alternative treatments, mainly IVF. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with expectant management or IVF in improving the probability of livebirth in the context of tubal infertility (regardless of grade of severity). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in October 2016: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO; as well as clinical trials registries, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists of included trials and related systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only randomised controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion, with livebirth rate per participant as the primary outcome of interest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned that two review authors would independently assess trial eligibility and risk of bias and would extract study data. The primary review outcome was cumulative livebirth rate. Pregnancy rate and adverse outcomes, including miscarriage rate, rate of ectopic pregnancy and rate of procedure-related complications, were secondary outcomes. We planned to combine data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to assess statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and to assess the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no suitable randomised controlled trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of tubal surgery relative to expectant management and IVF in terms of livebirth rates for women with tubal infertility remains unknown. Large trials with adequate power are warranted to establish the effectiveness of surgery in these women. Future trials should not only report livebirth rates per patient but should compare adverse effects and costs of treatment over a longer time. Factors that have a major effect on these outcomes, such as fertility treatment, female partner's age, duration of infertility and previous pregnancy history, should be considered. Researchers should report livebirth rates in relation to severity of tubal damage and different techniques used for tubal repair, including microsurgery and laparoscopic methods.
BACKGROUND: Surgery remains an acceptable treatment modality for tubal infertility despite the rise in usage of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Estimated livebirth rates after surgery range from 9% for women with severe tubal disease to 69% for those with mild disease; however, the effectiveness of surgery has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments such as IVF and expectant management (no treatment). Livebirth rates have not been adequately assessed in relation to the severity of tubal damage. It is important to determine the effectiveness of surgery against other treatment options in women with tubal infertility because of concerns about adverse outcomes, intraoperative complications and costs associated with tubal surgery, as well as alternative treatments, mainly IVF. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with expectant management or IVF in improving the probability of livebirth in the context of tubal infertility (regardless of grade of severity). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in October 2016: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO; as well as clinical trials registries, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists of included trials and related systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only randomised controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion, with livebirth rate per participant as the primary outcome of interest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned that two review authors would independently assess trial eligibility and risk of bias and would extract study data. The primary review outcome was cumulative livebirth rate. Pregnancy rate and adverse outcomes, including miscarriage rate, rate of ectopic pregnancy and rate of procedure-related complications, were secondary outcomes. We planned to combine data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to assess statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and to assess the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no suitable randomised controlled trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of tubal surgery relative to expectant management and IVF in terms of livebirth rates for women with tubal infertility remains unknown. Large trials with adequate power are warranted to establish the effectiveness of surgery in these women. Future trials should not only report livebirth rates per patient but should compare adverse effects and costs of treatment over a longer time. Factors that have a major effect on these outcomes, such as fertility treatment, female partner's age, duration of infertility and previous pregnancy history, should be considered. Researchers should report livebirth rates in relation to severity of tubal damage and different techniques used for tubal repair, including microsurgery and laparoscopic methods.
Authors: B Mosgaard; J Hertz; B R Steenstrup; S S Sørensen; A Lindhard; A N Andersen Journal: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Darine El-Chaar; Qiuying Yang; Jun Gao; Jim Bottomley; Arthur Leader; Shi Wu Wen; Mark Walker Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 7.329