Citation Information :
Zucha MA, Lutfi M, Silawani S, Feliciana A, Astari P. Pregnancy Rate after Tubal Reanastomosis: A Case Presentation and Systematic Review. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2022; 13 (1):28-33.
Tubal reanastomosis is an option to recanalize fallopian tubes after previous sterilization. Several factors may be important in defining the success rate afterwards. This paper aimed to describe our experience performing tubal reanastomosis, and discuss the fertility outcome through a systematic literature review. We successfully performed tubal reanastomosis that resulted in pregnancy within 1 year after the procedure. Microsurgical tubal reanastomosis was performed with four-stitch technique. In addition, we conducted systematic searching to describe the efficacy of tubal reanastomosis in reversing the fertility status. MEDLINE database was searched with keywords: tubal reanastomosis, sterilization, and fertility. According to our criteria and search protocol, 16 studies were found, including 8,584 subjects. Data of pregnancy rate of those studies were collected to determine a cumulative pregnancy rate. According to our systematic review, we found tubal reanastomosis may result in successful conception of 70.27% of patients. Moreover, microsurgical tubal reanastomosis has comparable outcome in comparison to minimal invasive surgical approach. Therefore, tubal reanastomosis with microsurgery may be provided to reverse fertility status in low-resource settings. Our results mainly impact on patients who underwent tubal sterilization but need a fertility reversal. Our shared technique may be used as an important insight for the surgical approach. More importantly, pregnancy rates from the systematic review may be used as evidence-based prediction number of pregnancies.
Murthy P, Edwards J, Pathak M. Update on hysteroscopic sterilisation. Obstet Gynaecol 2017;19(3):227–235. DOI: 10.1111/tog.12390
Koteshwar S, Siddesh A. A study of tubal recanalization in Era of ART (assisted reproduction technology). J Clin Diagnostic Res 2016;10(2):QC01–QC03. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17376.7243
Messinger LB, Alford CE, Csokmay JM, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of in vitro fertilization and tubal anastomosis for women after tubal ligation. Fertil Steril 2015;104(1):32–38.e4. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.04.019
Caballero-Gómez JM, Ortega-Moreno J. Study of two simplified microsurgical techniques for uterine horn anastomosis in rat. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1993;252(4):191–195. DOI: 10.1007/BF02426357
Estes SJ, Bhagavath B, Lindheim SR. Tubal anastomosis: once in a blue moon? Fertil Steril 2018;110(1)64–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.024
Hurwitz A, Amir G, Yagel S, et al. A single continuous suture as a possible alternative to the interrupted suture for tubal anastomosis. Int J Infertil 1990;35(2):125–128.
Dubuisson JB, Swolin K. Surgery: brief communication: laparoscopic tubal anastomosis (the one stitch technique): preliminary results. Hum Reprod 1995;10(8):2044–2046. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136232
Tulandi T. Effects of fibrin sealant on tubal anastomosis and adhesion formation. Fertil Steril 1991;56(1):136–138. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)54432-x
Gauwerky JFH, Klose RP, Forssmann WG. Surgery: fibrin glue for anastomosis of the fallopian tube-morphology. Hum Reprod 1993;8(12):2108–2114. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals. humrep.a137991
Kavoussi SK, Kavoussi KM, Lebovic DI. Robotic-assisted tubal anastomosis with one-stitch technique. J Robot Surg 2014;8(2):133–136. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-013-0442-z
Godin PA, Syrios K, Rege G, et al. Laparoscopic reversal of tubal sterilization; a retrospective study over 135 cases. Front Surg 2018;5:79. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00079
Göçmen A, Şanlikan F, Uçar MG. Robot-assisted tubal reanastomosis: Initial experience in a single institution. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2013;52(1)77–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2012.01.036
Feng Y, Zhao H, Xu H, et al. Analysis of pregnancy outcome after anastomosis of oviduct and its influencing factors. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019;19(1):1–5. DOI: 10.1186/s12884- 019-2469-2
Karayalcin R, Ozcan S, Tokmak A, et al. Pregnancy outcome of laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis: retrospective results from a single clinical centre. J Int Med Res 2017;45(3):1245–1252. DOI: 10.1177/0300060517709815
Paul P, Bhosale SA, Khan S, et al. Fertility outcome in laparoscopic single tube reanastomosis. J Reprod Med 2015;60(1-2):30–36.
Van De Water M, Bosteels J, De Sutter P, et al. Laparoscopic non-microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Heal Care 2015;20(3):193–200. DOI: 10.3109/13625187.2014.990087
Schepens JJ, Mol BW, Wiegerinck MA, et al. Pregnancy outcomes and prognostic factors from tubal sterilization reversal by sutureless laparoscopical re-anastomosis: a retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 2011;26(2):354–359. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq326
Moon HS, Joo BS, Park GS, et al. High pregnancy rate after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis by temporary loose parallel 4-quadrant sutures technique: a long long-term follow-up report on 961 cases. Hum Reprod 2012;27(6):1657–1662. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des078
Berger GS, Thorp JM, Weaver MA. Effectiveness of bilateral tubotubal anastomosis in a large outpatient population. Hum Reprod 2016;31(5):1120–1125. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew038
Schippert C, Bassler C, Soergel P, et al. Reconstructive, organ-preserving microsurgery in tubal infertility: still an alternative to in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2010;93(4):1359–1361. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.08.017
Hirth R, Zbella E, Sanchez M, et al. Microtubal reanastomosis: success rates as compared to in vitro fertilization. J Reprod Med 2010;55(3-4):161–165.
Tan HH, Loh SF. Microsurgical reversal of sterilisation - Is this still clinically relevant today? Ann Acad Med Singapore 2010;39(1): 22–26.