Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Infertilité tubo-péritonéale

  • Chapter
Physiologie, pathologie et thérapie de la reproduction chez l’humain

  • 898 Accesses

Résumé

Dans environ 30% des cas, l’infertilité d’un couple est due à une altération tubaire proximale et/ou distale. Très rapidement, la coelioscopie opératoire a supplanté le recours à la laparotomie, devenant ainsi l’exploration chirurgicale référentielle de la pathologie tubo-péritonéale. Cependant, les résultats de la chirurgie tubaire, parfois très mauvais lors d’altérations tubaires importantes, ont mis légitimement cette chirurgie à l’écart au bénéfice de l’avènement des techniques de fécondation in vitro dans les années 1990. Aujourd’hui, les différents travaux récents sur l’eff et délétère de la pathologie tubaire infectieuse en assistance médicale à la procréation (AMP) redonne un regain d’intérêt à l’exploration endoscopique opératoire du pelvis et, en particulier, des trompes lors de l’exploration d’un couple infertile.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. Henry-Suchet J, Goldstein F, Acar J et al. (1980) Bacteriological cultures by laparoscopy in salpingitis. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 9:341–346

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Henry-Suchet J (1987) Infection génitale haute de la femme. Séquences et conséquences. Rev Prat 37:101–106

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Trimbos-Kemper T, Trimbos B, Van Hall E (1982) Etiological factors in tubal infertility. Fertil Steril 37:384–388

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lang EK, Dunaway HE Jr (2001) Salpingographic demonstration of “cobblestone” mucosa of the distal tubes is indicative of irreversible mucosal damage. Fertil Steril 76:342–345

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Opsahl MS, Miller B, Klein TA (1993) The predictive value of hysterosalpingography for tubal and peritoneal infertility factors. Fertil Steril 60:444–448

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Henig I, Prough SG, Cheatwood M, DeLong E (1991) Hysterosalpingography, laparoscopy and hysteroscopy in infertility. A comparative study. J Reprod Med 36:573–575

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. El-Yahia AW (1994) Laparoscopic evaluation of apparently normal infertile women. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynecol 34:440–442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Al-Badawi IA, Fluker MR, Bebbington MW (1999) Diagnostic laparoscopy in infertile women with normal hyste-rosalpingograms. J Reprod Med 44:953–957

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gomel V (1977) Tubal reanastomosis by microsurgery. Fertil Steril 28:59–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dubuisson JB, Aubriot FX, Barbot J et al. (1983) Micro-surgical treatment of proximal lesions of the fallopian tubes. A propos of 51 cases. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 12:81–86

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Ansquer Y, Vacher-Lavenu MC (1997) Proximal tubal occlusion: is there an alternative to microsurgery? Hum Reprod 12:692–698

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Voorhis BJ (2000) Comparison of tubal ligation reversal procedures. Clin Obstet Gynecol 43:641–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Koh CH, Janik GM (1999) Laparoscopic microsurgery: current and future status. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 11:401–407

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Swolin K (1988) Tubal anastomosis. Hum Reprod 3:177–178

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dubuisson JB, Chapron C (1998) Single suture laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 10:307–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Schippert C, Bassler C, Soergel P et al. (2010) Reconstructive, organ-preserving microsurgery in tubal infertility: still an alternative to in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 934:1359–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S (2009) Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril 92:1198–1202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadière GB (2000) Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril 74:1020–1023

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Margossian H, Stevens L (2000) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a human pilot study. Fertil Steril 73:1040–1042

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T (2007) Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 109:1375–1380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA (2008) Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 90:1175–1179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marconi G, Auge L, Sojo E et al. (1992) Salpingoscopy: systematic use in diagnostic laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 57:742–746

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Watrelot A (2007) Place of transvaginal fertiloscopy in the management of tubal factor disease. Reprod Biomed Online 15:389–395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mage G, Pouly JL, Bouquet de Jolinière J et al. (1986) A preoperative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates after distal tubal microsurgery. Fertil Steril 46:807–810

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. American Fertility Society (1988) The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, and distal tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril 49:944–955

    Google Scholar 

  26. Daya S (1995) Comparison of, in vitro fertilization with conventional treatment for tubal infertility. Expert conference in Vichy, France, Références en Gynécologie Obstétrique n°spécial:206–214

    Google Scholar 

  27. Darai E, Dessolle L, Lecuru F, Soriano D (2000) Transvagi-nal hydrolaparoscopy compared with laparoscopy for the evaluation of infertile women: a prospective comparative blind study. Hum Reprod 15:2379–2382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Nawroth F, Foth D, Schmidt T, Römer T (2001) Results of a prospective comparative study of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy and chromolaparoscopy in the diagnostics of infertility. Gynecol Obstet Invest 52:184–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Saleh WA, Dlugi AM (1997) Pregnancy outcome after laparoscopic fimbrioplasty in nonocclusive distal tubal disease. Fertil Steril 67:474–480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Taylor RC, Berkowitz J, McComb PF (2001) Role of laparoscopic salpingostomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinx. Fertil Steril 77:594–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Strandell A, Waidenstrom U, Nilsson L, Hamburger L (1994) Hydrosalpinx reduces in-vitro fertilization/embryo transfer pregnancy rates. Human Reprod 9:861–863

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Camus E, Poncelet C, GoffinetF et al. (1999) Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies. Hum Reprod 14:1243–1249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dechaud H (2000) Hydrosalpinx and ART: hydrosalpinges suitable for salpingectomy before IVF. Hum Reprod 15:2464–2465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Strandell A, Lindhard A (2000) Hydrosalpinx and ART. Salpingectomy prior to IVF can be recommended to a well-defined subgroup of patient. Human Reprod 15:2072–2074

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Johnson NP, Mak W, SowterMC (2004) Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD002125

    Google Scholar 

  36. Zarei A, Al-Ghafri W, Tulandi T (2009) Tubal surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 52:344–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bayrak A, Harp D, Saadat P, Mor E, Paulson RJ (2006) Recurrence of hydrosalpinges after cuff neosalpingostomy in a poor prognosis population. J Assist Reprod Genet 23:285–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chen CD, Yang JH, Lin KC et al (2002) The significance of cytokines, chemical composition, and murine embryo development in hydrosalpinx fluid for predicting the IVF outcome in women with hydrosalpinx. Human Reprod 17:128–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bildirici I, Bukulmez O, Ensari A et al. (2001) A prospective evaluation of the effect of salpingectomy on endometrial receptivity in cases of women with communicating hydrosalpinges. Human Reprod 16:2422–2426

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Seli E, Kayisli UA, Cakmak H et al. (2005) Removal of hydrosalpinges increases endometrial leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) expression at the time of the implantation window. Hum Reprod 20:3012–3017

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Daftary GS, Kayisli U, Seli E et al. (2007) Salpingectomy increases peri-implantation endometrial HOXA10 expression in women with hydrosalpinx. Fertil Steril 87:367–372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Eytan O, Azem F, Gull I et al. (2001) The mechanism of hydrosalpinx in embryo implantation. Human Reprod 16:2662–2667

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. McComb PF, Taylor RC (2001) Pregnancy outcome after unilateral salpingostomy with a contralateral patent oviduct. Fertil Steril 76:1278–1279

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI (2002) Spontaneous intrauterine pregnancy following salpingectomy for a unilateral hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod 17:1099–1100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Sagoskin AW, Lessey BA, Mottla GL et al. (2003) Salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion of unilateral hydrosalpinx increases the potential for spontaneous pregnancy. Hum Reprod 18:2634–2637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hammadieh N, Coomarasamy A, Ola B et al. (2008) Ultrasound-guided hydrosalpinx aspiration during oocyte collection improves pregnancy outcome in IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 23:1113–1117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mijatovic V, Veersema S, Emanuel MH et al. (2010) Essure hysteroscopic tubal occlusion device for the treatment of hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in patients with a contraindication for laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 93:1138–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Darwish AM, El Saman AM (2007) Is there a role for hysteroscopic tubal occlusion of functionless hydrosalpinges prior to IVF/ICSI in modern practice? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86:1484–1489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dar P, Sachs GS, Strassburger D et al. (2000) Ovarian function before and after salpingectomy in artificial reproductive technology patients. Hum Reprod Jan 15:142–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Nakagawa K, Ohgi S, Nakashima A et al. (2008) Laparoscopic proximal tubal division can preserve ovarian reserve for infertility patients with hydrosalpinges. J Obstet Gynaecol Res Dec 34:1037–1042

    Google Scholar 

  51. Haebe J, Martin J, Tekepety F et al. (2002) Success of intrauterine insemination in women aged 40–42 years. Fertil Steril 78:29–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Klipstein S, Regan M, Ryley DA et al. (2005) One last chance for pregnancy: a review of 2,705 in vitro fertilization cycles initiated in women age 40 years and above. Fertil Steril 84:435–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Rapport FIVNAT (2003) Résultats de l’AMP

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lower AM, Hawthorn RJS, Clark D, Knight AD, Crowe AM (2004) Adhesion related readmissions following gynaecological laparoscopy or laparotomy in Scotland: an epide-miological study of 24,046 patients. Human Reprod 19:1877–1885

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Diamond MP, Freeman ML (2001) Clinical implications of postsurgical adhesions. Human Reprod Update 7:567–576

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Mettler L (2003) Pelvis adhesions: laparoscopic approach. Ann NY Acad Sci 997:255–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Mais V, Bracco GL, Litta P et al. (2006) Reduction of postoperative adhesions with an auto-crosslinked hyaluronan gel in gynaecolgical laparoscopic surgery: a blind, controlled randomized multicenter study. Human Reprod 21:1248–1254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Brown CB, Luciano AA, Martin D et al. (2007) Adept (ico-dextrine 4% solution) reduces adhesions after laparoscopic surgery for adhesiolysis a double-blind, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 88:1413–1426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de gynécologie obstétrique Pôle de périnatalité, Hôpital Armand Trousseau, 26, avenue du Dr. Arnold-Netter, 75012, Paris

    J.-L. Benifla

Authors
  1. J.-L. Benifla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag France, Paris

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Benifla, JL. (2011). Infertilité tubo-péritonéale. In: Physiologie, pathologie et thérapie de la reproduction chez l’humain. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0061-5_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0061-5_23

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-8178-0060-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-8178-0061-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation