Abstract
Tubal anastomosis is a minimally invasive outpatient procedure that can be performed by minilaparotomy or laparoscopy, with or without robotic assistance. Success rates are high even in older women. Although the cost to achieve a pregnancy is generally less with tubal anastomosis than with IVF, the advantages and disadvantages of each needs to be discussed with the patient.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin. Benefits and risks of sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:647–58.
Putman JM, Holden AE, Olive DL. Pregnancy rates following tubal anastomosis: Pomeroy partial salpingectomy versus electrocautery. J Gynecol Surg. 1990;6:173–8.
Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Nos C, Morice P, Aubriot FX, Garnier P. Sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1145–51.
Yoon TK, Sung HR, Kang HG, Cha SH, Lee CN, Cha KY. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1121–6.
Hanafi MM. Factors affecting the pregnancy rate after microsurgical reversal of tubal ligation. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:434–40.
Kim JD, Kim KS, Doo JK, Rhyeu CH. A report on 387 cases of microsurgical tubal reversals. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:875–80.
Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1198–202.
Trimbos-Kemper TC. Reversal of sterilization in women over 40 years of age: a multicenter survey in The Netherlands. Fertil Steril. 1990;53:575–7.
Glock JL, Kim AH, Hulka JF, Hunt RB, Trad FS, Brumsted JR. Reproductive outcome after tubal reversal in women 40 years of age or older. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:863–5.
Cha SH, Lee MH, Kim JH, Lee CN, Yoon TK, Cha KY. Fertility outcome after tubal anastomosis by laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2001;8:348–52.
Petrucco OM, Silber SJ, Chamberlain SL, Warnes GM, Davies M. Live birth following day surgery reversal of female sterilisation in women older than 40 years: a realistic option in Australia? Med J Aust. 2007;187:271–3.
Centers for Disease Control. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) report: section 2—ART cycles using fresh, nondonor eggs or embryos. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; 2008.
Yossry M, Aboulghar M, D’Angelo A, Gillett W. In vitro fertilisation versus tubal reanastomosis (sterilisation reversal) for subfertility after tubal sterilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD004144.
Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2660–4.
Hansen M, Bower C, Milne E, de Klerk N, Kurinczuk JJ. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects—a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:328–38.
McDonald SD, Murphy K, Beyene J, Ohlsson A. Perinatel outcomes of singleton pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005;27:449–59.
Jackson RA, Gibson KA, Wu YW, Croughan MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:551–63.
Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Otterblad PO. Congenital malformations in infants born after in vitro fertilization in Sweden. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010;88:137–43.
El-Chaar D, Yang Q, Gao J, et al. Risk of birth defects increased in pregnancies conceived by assisted human reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1557–61.
Opsahl MS, Klein TA. The role of laparoscopy in the evaluation of candidates for sterilization reversal. Fertil Steril. 1987;48:546–9.
Seiler JC. Factors influencing the outcome of microsurgical tubal ligation reversals. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;146:292–8.
Taylor PJ, Leader A. Reversal of female sterilization: how reliable is the previous operative report? J Reprod Med. 1982;27:246–8.
Falcone T, Goldberg J, Garcia-Ruiz A, Margossian H, Stevens L. Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: a case report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1999;9: 107–13.
Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadiere GB. Robotically assisted laparoscopic Âmicrosurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:1020–3.
Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1375–80.
Vlahos NF, Bankowski BJ, King JA, Shiller DA. Laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis using robotics: experience from a teaching institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2007;17: 180–5.
Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1175–9.
Caillet M, Vandromme J, Rozenberg S, Paesmans M, Germay O, Degueldre M. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1844–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Goldberg, J.M., Falcone, T. (2013). Tubal Microsurgery. In: Sandlow, J. (eds) Microsurgery for Fertility Specialists. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4196-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4196-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4195-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4196-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)