Tubal Microsurgery

Chapter

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.

Keywords

Fallopian tubes Tubal anastomosis Tubal ligation reversal Female sterilization reversal Microsurgery Robotic surgery 

References

  1. 1.
    ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin. Benefits and risks of sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:647–58.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Putman JM, Holden AE, Olive DL. Pregnancy rates following tubal anastomosis: Pomeroy partial salpingectomy versus electrocautery. J Gynecol Surg. 1990;6:173–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Nos C, Morice P, Aubriot FX, Garnier P. Sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1145–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanafi MM. Factors affecting the pregnancy rate after microsurgical reversal of tubal ligation. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:434–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim JD, Kim KS, Doo JK, Rhyeu CH. A report on 387 cases of microsurgical tubal reversals. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:875–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1198–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2660–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Opsahl MS, Klein TA. The role of laparoscopy in the evaluation of candidates for sterilization reversal. Fertil Steril. 1987;48:546–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seiler JC. Factors influencing the outcome of microsurgical tubal ligation reversals. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;146:292–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taylor PJ, Leader A. Reversal of female sterilization: how reliable is the previous operative report? J Reprod Med. 1982;27:246–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadiere GB. Robotically assisted laparoscopic ­microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:1020–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1375–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1175–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Ob/Gyn and Women’s Health InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations