Literature DB >> 8561006

Conservative versus radical surgery for tubal pregnancy. A review.

I Clausen1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to analyse the fertility prognosis after conservative or radical surgery for tubal pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: Index Medicus was searched for all attainable literature on the subject. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A total of 40 scientific publications through the latest 40 years were selected. For fulfilling the selection criterias the study design should appear clearly. Furthermore the rate of women obtaining intrauterine pregnancy and the rate of repeat ectopic pregnancy following radical or conservative tubal surgery was to be compared using 95% confidence limits. The results from each report were compared in four groups according to study design i.e. retrospective non-comparing materials, retrospective comparing studies, prospective selected treatment series or prospective randomized comparing investigations. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pooling the results from the retrospective noncomparing materials revealed that there was no significant difference in intrauterine pregnancy rates, i.e. 46% following conservative tubal surgery and 44% after radical surgery. The repeat ectopic pregnancy rate was 10% following conservative surgery and 15% after radical surgery. In the group of restrospective comparing studies only one of 15 materials could document a significant better intrauterine pregnancy rate after conservative tubal surgery than following radical treatment for tubal pregnancy. There were no differences either in this group in repeat ectopic pregnancy rates. Prospective investigations were almost exclusively represented by selected conservative treatment series. In these series the average intrauterine pregnancy rate was 57% and the repeat ectopic pregnancy rate was 13%.
CONCLUSIONS: In studies on fertility after radical or conservative surgical treatment for tubal pregnancy no significant difference in intrauterine pregnancy rates or repeat ectopic pregnancy rates were found. Prospective selected treatment series demonstrated higher intrauterine pregnancy rates than retrospective studies. The repeat ectopic pregnancy rate was not raised in prospective series. No prospective randomised trial was found.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8561006     DOI: 10.3109/00016349609033276

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  13 in total

Review 1.  Ectopic pregnancy.

Authors:  J I Tay; J Moore; J J Walker
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-04-01

Review 2.  Ectopic pregnancy.

Authors:  J I Tay; J Moore; J J Walker
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-08

3.  Open to laparoscopic conversion in hemoperitoneum of unknown origin.

Authors:  S Paun; I Negoi; R Ganescu; M Beuran
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 4.  Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy.

Authors:  P J Hajenius; F Mol; B W J Mol; P M M Bossuyt; W M Ankum; F van der Veen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-01-24

5.  Diagnosis and management of ectopic pregnancy.

Authors:  Vanitha N Sivalingam; W Colin Duncan; Emma Kirk; Lucy A Shephard; Andrew W Horne
Journal:  J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care       Date:  2011-07-04

6.  Ectopic pregnancy after infertility treatment.

Authors:  Madhuri Patil
Journal:  J Hum Reprod Sci       Date:  2012-05

7.  Fertility outcome analysis after surgical management of tubal ectopic pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Jingwei Li; Kailei Jiang; Fujie Zhao
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Comparison of the Fertility Outcome of Salpingotomy and Salpingectomy in Women with Tubal Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Xiaolin Cheng; Xiaoyu Tian; Zhen Yan; Mengmeng Jia; Jie Deng; Ying Wang; Dongmei Fan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Spontaneous heterotopic pregnancy with tubal rupture: a case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Rimpy Tandon; Poonam Goel; Pradip Kumar Saha; Lajya Devi
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2009-06-10

10.  The ESEP study: salpingostomy versus salpingectomy for tubal ectopic pregnancy; the impact on future fertility: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Femke Mol; Annika Strandell; Davor Jurkovic; Tamer Yalcinkaya; Harold R Verhoeve; Carolien Am Koks; Paul Jq van der Linden; Giuseppe Cm Graziosi; Andreas L Thurkow; Annemieke Hoek; Lars Hogström; Ingemar Klinte; Kerstin Nilsson; Norah M van Mello; Willem M Ankum; Fulco van der Veen; Ben Wm Mol; Petra J Hajenius
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2008-06-26       Impact factor: 2.809

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.