Literature DB >> 9740428

Fertility after conservative and radical surgery for tubal pregnancy.

B W Mol1, H C Matthijsse, D J Tinga, T Huynh, P J Hajenius, W M Ankum, P M Bossuyt, F van der Veen.   

Abstract

A retrospective cohort study was set up to evaluate the effectiveness of conservative and radical surgery for tubal pregnancy towards subsequent fertility. Consecutive patients undergoing conservative or radical surgery for tubal pregnancy between January 1990 and August 1993 in two university hospitals were included in the study. Outcome measures were spontaneous intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) and repeat ectopic pregnancy (EP). Of the 135 patients analysed, 56 underwent conservative surgery and 79 underwent radical surgery. Patients treated with conservative surgery achieved a higher 3-year cumulative pregnancy rate than those treated radically (P < 0.001, log-rank test). In patients treated conservatively, there was only one spontaneous IUP in the period between 18 months and 3 years after the tubal pregnancy. In contrast, patients treated radically continued to conceive in this period. Multivariate analysis showed a fecundity rate ratio (FRR) of 1.9 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91 to 3.8] for IUP after conservative surgery in the first 18 months of follow-up. In patients with a history of bilateral tubal disease the FRR was 3.1 (95% CI: 0.76 to 12), whereas in patients without a history of bilateral tubal disease the FRR was 1.4 (95% CI: 0.13 to 16). The FRR for repeat EP was 2.4 (95% CI: 0.57 to 11). Our data indicate a beneficial effect of conservative surgery towards subsequent fertility that was not, however, statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. In view of these inconclusive data and the importance of this major health problem, randomized studies are required to assess whether conservative surgery really improves the fertility prospects of patients with tubal pregnancy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9740428     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/13.7.1804

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  9 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

Review 3.  Tubal ectopic pregnancy.

Authors:  Rajesh Varma; Janesh Gupta
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2012-02-10

4.  Tubal ectopic pregnancy.

Authors:  Vinod Kumar; Janesh Gupta
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2015-11-16

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  Tubal ectopic pregnancy.

Authors:  Rajesh Varma; Janesh Gupta
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2009-04-20

7.  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

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.  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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.