The management of female infertility by tubal microsurgical reconstruction: A ten year review

  • T. G. Teoh
  • U. Kondaveeti
  • M. R. N. Darling


The outcome of 368 consecutive tubal microsurgical operations excluding reversal of sterilizations, over a ten year period at the Rotunda Hospital, is presented. One hundred and ten conceptions resulted giving a pregnancy rate of 29.9% per procedure. The ‘take home baby rate’ was 24.2%, with miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy rates of 2.7% and 3% respectively.


Infertility Endometriosis Pregnancy Rate Fallopian Tube Female Infertility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Hull, M. G. R., Glazener, C. M. A., Kelly, N. J., Conway, D. I., Foster, P. A., Hinton, R. A., Coulson, C., Lambert, P. A., Watt, E. M., Desai, K. M. Population study of causes, treatment and outcome of infertility. British Medical Journal, 1985: 291, 1693–1697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferguson, I. L. C. Laparoscopic investigation of female infertility. In Tubal Infertility, Diagnosis and Treatment (Chamberlain G. & Winston RML., eds), 1982: Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, P. 30–46.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Watson, A. J. S., Gupta, J. K., O’Donovan, P., Dalton, M. E., Lilford, R. J. The results of tubal surgery in the treatment of two non-specialist hospitals. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1990: 97, 561–568.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winston, R. M. L. Microsurgery of the fallopian tube: from fantasy to reality. Fertil. Steril. 1980: 34, 521–527.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winston, R. M. L. Reconstructive Microsurgery. Tubal Infertility. Diagnosis and Treatment Edited by G. C. Chamberlain & R. Winston. Blackwell Scientific 1982: 79–104.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lilford, R. J., Watson, A. J. S. Has in-vitro fertilisation made salpingostomy obsolete? Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1990: 97, 557–560.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lancet Editorial. IVF or Tubal Surgery? Lancet. 1991: 337, 888–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiss, H. Management of tubal infertility in the 1990’s. Commentary. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1991: 98, 619–623.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gomel, V., Taylor, P. J. In vitro fertilisation versus reconstructive tubal surgery. J. Assd. Reprod. Genetics 1992. 9, 4; 306–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Watson, A. J. S., Gupta, J. K., O’Donovan, P., Lilford, R. J. The results of tubal surgery in the treatment of infertility in two non specialist hospitals. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1990: 97, 561–568.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Te Velde, E. R., Boer, M. E., Looman, C. W. N., Habbema, J. D. F. Factors influencing the success or failure after reversal of sterilisation: a multivariate approach. Fertil. Steril. 1990, 54, 270–277.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gomel, V. Operative laparoscopy: time for acceptance. Fertil. Steril. 1989: 56. 1–11.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dubuisson, J. B., Darai, E., Bouquet de Joliniere, J. et al. Terminal tuboplasties by laparoscopy: 65 consecutive cases. Fertil. Steril. 1990: 54. 401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russell, J. B., DeCherney, A. H., Lanfar, N. et al. Neosalpingostomy: Comparison of 24 and 72 months follow-up time shows increased pregnancy rate. Fertil. Steril. 1986: 45. 296–298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrison, R. F., Gordon, A. C., Kondaveeti (Gordon), U. et al. The role of IVF in the management of unexplained infertility. (In press) J. Assisted Reprod. Genetics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. G. Teoh
    • 1
  • U. Kondaveeti
    • 1
  • M. R. N. Darling
    • 1
  1. 1.Rotunda HospitalDublin 1

Personalised recommendations