Gonca Yetkin YILDIRIM, Nadiye KÖROĞLU, Ahu KORKUT ORTA, Lale TÜRKGELDİ SUSAN

The Relations Between HSG Proven Tubal Occlusion, Stimulated Intrauterine Insemination and Pregnancy Rate

Background: Tubal factor infertility is one of the maincauses of female infertility. Although its sensitivity islow, hysterosalpingography (HSG) is remains the firstlinemethod for evaluating tubal patency.Aims: To compare pregnancy rates in patients with HSGproven proximal or distal unilateral tubal occlusion,and unexplained infertility undergoing both controlledovarian stimulation (COS) and intrauterine insemination(IUI).Study Design: Case control study.Methods: In total, 237 patients undergoing ovulationinduction (OI) with gonadotropins and IUI were dividedinto two groups and evaluated. Study group consisted 59patients with HSG proven unilateral tubal pathology, and178 patients with unexplained infertility taken as controlsubjects. Cumulative pregnancy rate was the primaryendpoint.Results: Cumulative pregnancy rates after three cyclesof OI and IUI were 15.25% in study group and 20.79%in control group. Pregnancy rates between two groupswere not statistically significant. Although, pregnancyrates in patients with proximal tubal occlusion (21.8%)were higher than in those with distal tubal occlusion(7.4%), the difference was not statistically significant.Conclusion: Our study data shows that, regardless ofthe HCG proven occlusion area, COS and IUI might bea preferred treatment modality in patient with unilateraltubal occlusion.

PDF

___

1. Kodaman PH, Arici A, Seli E. Evidence-based diagnosis and management of tubal factor infertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2004;16:221-9.
2. Swart P, Mol BW, van der Veen F, van Beurden M, Redekop WK, Bossuyt PM. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995;64:486-91.
3. Farhi J, Ben-Haroush A, Lande Y, Fisch B. Role of treatment with ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination in women with unilateral tubal occlusion diagnosed by hysterosalpingography. Fertil Steril 2007;88:396- 400.
4. Ebrahimi M, Akbari Asbagh F, Ghaseminejad A. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination cycles in patients with unilateral tubal blockage diagnosed by hysterosalpingography. Iran J Reprod Med 2011;9:15-20.
5. Berker B, Şükür YE, Kahraman K, Atabekoğlu CS, Sönmezer M, Özmen B, et al. Impact of unilateral tubal blockage diagnosed by hysterosalpingography on the success rate of treatment with controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination. J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;34:127-30.
6. Mol BW, Swart P, Bossuyt PM, van der Veen F. Is hysterosalpingography an important tool in predicting fertility outcome? Fertil Steril 1997;67:663- 9.
7. Tvarijonaviciene E, Nadisauskiene RJ. The value of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology among infertile patients. Medicina (Kaunas) 2008;44:439-48.
8. Kitilla T. Tubo-peritoneal infertility: comparision of pre-operative hysterosalpingography and laparotomy findings (Tikur Anbessa Hospital, 1995-2002). Ethiop Med J 2006;44:167-74.
9. Dessole S, Meloni GB, Capobianco G, Manzoni MA, Ambrosini G, Canalis GC. A second hysterosalpingography reduces the use of selective technique for treatment of a proximal tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1037-9.
10. Fernandez H, Capmas P, Lucot JP, Resch B, Panel P, Bouyer J, et al. Fertility after ectopic pregnancy: the DEMETER randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2013;28:1247-53.
11. Papaioannou S, Afnan M, Girling AJ, Coomarasamy A, Ola B, Olufowobi O, et al. Long-term fertility prognosis following selective salpingography and tubal catheterization in women with proximal tubal blockage. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2325-30.
12. Honoré GM, Holden AE, Schenken RS. Pathophysiology and management of proximal tubal blockage. Fertil Steril 1999;71:785-95.
13. Audebert A, Pouly JL, Bonifacie B, Yazbeck C. Laparoscopic surgery for distal tubal occlusions: lessons learned from a historical series of 434 cases. Fertil Steril 2014;102:1203-8.