PDF herunterladen
J Reconstr Microsurg 2013; 29(03): 189-194
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1333313
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Factors Affecting Pregnancy Rates after Microsurgical Reversal of Tubal Sterilization

Opas Sreshthaputra
1   Division of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
,
Rung-aroon Sreshthaputra
1   Division of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
,
Teraporn Vutyavanich
1   Division of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

25. April 2012

05. Oktober 2012

Publikationsdatum:
21. Januar 2013 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic factors and pregnancy rates after microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization. Patients undergoing tubal anastomosis from 2001 to 2008 were included. Relevant data were extracted from their medical records. Pregnancy outcomes were ascertained by responses to mailed questionnaires and telephone contact. A total of 98 patients were identified. We found that the mean duration of follow-up was 67 ± 28 months. Fifty-five patients conceived (pregnancy rate 62.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 52 to 72.8%). Of these, 50 were intrauterine and 5 were tubal pregnancies. Life-table analysis estimated cumulative pregnancy rates to be 30.7%, 39.8%, 49%, and 53.7% at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after reversal, respectively. Age at the time of reversal was the only significant prognostic factor multivariate model. We concluded that age of the patient at the operation is the most important prognostic factor.

Keywords

female sterilization - prognostic factors - sterilization reversal
 

  • References

  • 1 United Nations. World contraceptive use 2009. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/ population/publications/contraceptive2009/contraceptive2009.htm . Accessed March 21, 2011
    PubMed
  • 2 Social Statistics Bureau. The 2009 Reproductive Health Survey. National Statistical Office, 2010
    PubMed
  • 3 Borrero SB, Reeves MF, Schwarz EB, Bost JE, Creinin MD, Ibrahim SA. Race, insurance status, and desire for tubal sterilization reversal. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: 272-277
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Curtis KM, Mohllajee AP, Peterson HB. Regret following female sterilization at a young age: a systematic review. Contraception 2006; 73: 205-210
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Kariminia A, Saunders DM, Chamberlain M. Risk factors for strong regret and subsequent IVF request after having tubal ligation. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 42: 526-529
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93: 889-895
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Schmidt JE, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Jeng G, Peterson HB. Requesting information about and obtaining reversal after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Fertil Steril 2000; 74: 892-898
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF?. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2660-2664
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Muzii L, Marana R. Tubal reanastomosis or IVF?. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: 242-243 , author reply 243
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Garcia CR. Oviductal anastomosis procedures. In: Richard RM, Prager DJ, eds. Human Sterilization. Springfiled: Thomas Charles; 1972: 116
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Winston RM. Microsurgical reanastomosis of rabbit oviduct and its functional and pathological sequelae. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975; 82: 513-522
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Gomel V. Tubal reanastomosis by microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1977; 28: 59-65
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Henderson SR. The reversibility of female sterilization with the use of microsurgery: a report on 102 patients with more than one year of follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 149: 57-65
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 1198-1202
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 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: 348-352
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Yoon TK, Sung HR, Kang HG, Cha SH, Lee CN, Cha KY. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril 1999; 72: 1121-1126
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bissonnette F, Lapensée L, Bouzayen R. Outpatient laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and subsequent fertility. Fertil Steril 1999; 72: 549-552
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Kim JD, Kim KS, Doo JK, Rhyeu CH. A report on 387 cases of microsurgical tubal reversals. Fertil Steril 1997; 68: 875-880
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Kim SH, Shin CJ, Kim JG, Moon SY, Lee JY, Chang YS. Microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization: a report on 1,118 cases. Fertil Steril 1997; 68: 865-870
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Rouzi AA, Mackinnon M, McComb PF. Predictors of success of reversal of sterilization. Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 29-36
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 te Velde ER, Boer ME, Looman CW, Habbema JD. Factors influencing success or failure after reversal of sterilization: a multivariate approach. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 270-277
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Rock JA, Guzick DS, Katz E, Zacur HA, King TM. Tubal anastomosis: pregnancy success following reversal of Falope ring or monopolar cautery sterilization. Fertil Steril 1987; 48: 13-17
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Hulka JF, Halme J. Sterilization reversal: results of 101 attempts. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159: 767-774
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Henderson SR. The reversibility of female sterilization with the use of microsurgery: a report on 102 patients with more than one year of follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 149: 57-65
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Nos C, Morice P, Aubriot FX, Garnier P. Sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 1145-1151
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Putman JM, Holden AE, Olive DL. Pregnancy rates following tubal anastomosis: Pomeroy partial salpingectomy versus electrocautery. J Gynecol Surg 1990; 6: 173-178
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Xue P, Fa YY. Microsurgical reversal of female sterilization. Long-term follow-up of 117 cases. J Reprod Med 1989; 34: 451-455
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Vasquez G, Winston RM, Boeckx W, Brosens I. Tubal lesions subsequent to sterilization and their relation to fertility after attempts at reversal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 138: 86-92
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Isaacs Jr JD, Young RA, Cowan BD. Cumulative pregnancy analysis of one-tube versus two-tube tubal anastomosis. Fertil Steril 1997; 68: 217-219
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Boeckx W, Gordts S, Buysse K, Brosens I. Reversibility after female sterilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 839-842
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar