Semin intervent Radiol 2023; 40(04): 379-383
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771042
Review Article

Recanalization of Proximal Fallopian Tube Obstruction in the Treatment of Infertility

Priya Mody
1   Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
,
Gloria Salazar
1   Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
,
Maureen P. Kohi
1   Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Infertility affects approximately 15% of patients worldwide, with up to 40% of cases attributed to tubal disease, and up to 25% of those being proximal fallopian tube obstruction (FTO). Evaluation of tubal patency can be performed via laparoscopic chromopertubation, hysterosalpingography, or hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography (HyCoSy). In patients with proximal tubal obstruction, fallopian tube recanalization (FTR) can result in up to 100% technical success rate with pregnancy rates of 12.8 to 51%. More pregnancies occur when oil-soluble contrast media are used versus water-soluble contrast media. Complications of FTR are rare and include tubal perforation, ectopic pregnancy, and pelvic infection. Reocclusion of fallopian tubes may occur in 20 to 50% of patients; however, FTR may be repeated in these cases. Overall, FTR is underutilized in the treatment of infertility secondary to proximal FTO and it can obviate costly and time-consuming assistive reproductive techniques such as in vitro fertilization in some patients, as well as decreasing physical and emotional stress.

Keywords

fallopian tube occlusion - recanalization - tubal infertility - women's health - interventional radiology


Publication History

Article published online:
10 August 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Roberts A. Fallopian tube recanalization for the management of infertility. CVIR Endovasc 2023; 6 (01) 13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem 2018; 62: 2-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Grigovich M, Kacharia VS, Bharwani N, Hemingway A, Mijatovic V, Rodgers SK. Evaluating fallopian tube patency: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiographics 2021; 41 (06) 1876-18961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Thoma ME, McLain AC, Louis JF. et al. Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (05) 1324-1331.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dun EC, Nezhat CH. Tubal factor infertility: diagnosis and management in the era of assisted reproductive technology. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2012; 39 (04) 551-566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Allahbadia GN, Merchant R. Fallopian tube recanalization: lessons learnt and future challenges. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 2010; 6 (04) 531-548 , quiz 548–549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Thurmond AS. Fallopian tube catheterization. Semin Intervent Radiol 2008; 25 (04) 425-431
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ambildhuke K, Pajai S, Chimegave A, Mundhada R, Kabra P. A review of tubal factors affecting fertility and its management. Cureus 2022; 14 (11) e30990
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Watrelot A, Hamilton J, Grudzinskas JG. Advances in the assessment of the uterus and fallopian tube function. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 17 (02) 187-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Carson SA, Kallen AN. Diagnosis and management of infertility. JAMA 2021; 326 (01) 65-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Thurmond AS, Machan LS, Maubon AJ. et al. A review of selective salpingography and fallopian tube catheterization. Radiographics 2000; 20 (06) 1759-1768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Chalazonitis A, Tzovara I, Laspas F, Porfyridis P, Ptohis N, Tsimitselis G. Hysterosalpingography: technique and applications. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2009; 38 (05) 199-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Schankath AC, Fasching N, Urech-Ruh C, Hohl MK, Kubik-Huch RA. Hysterosalpingography in the workup of female infertility: indications, technique and diagnostic findings. Insights Imaging 2012; 3 (05) 475-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hedgpeth PL, Thurmond AS, Fry R, Schmidgall JR, Rösch J. Radiographic fallopian tube recanalization: absorbed ovarian radiation dose. Radiology 1991; 180 (01) 121-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cullinan JA, Fleischer AC, Kepple DM, Arnold AL. Sonohysterography: a technique for endometrial evaluation. Radiographics 1995; 15 (03) 501-514 , discussion 515–516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Saunders RD, Shwayder JM, Nakajima ST. Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (07) 2171-2179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Marlow JA, Picus D, Gould J, Connolly S, Mani NB. Outcomes after successful fallopian tube recanalization: a single institution experience: observational retrospective study. Clin Imaging 2021; 76: 70-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Van Eyk N, van Schalkwyk J. No. 275 - Antibiotic prophylaxis in gynaecologic procedures. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018; 40 (10) e723-e733
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pereira N, Hutchinson AP, Lekovich JP, Hobeika E, Elias RT. Antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures prior to and during the utilization of assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review. J Pathogens 2016; 2016: 4698314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Prevention of infection after gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2018;131(06):
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kohi MP. Interventional radiologist's approach to fallopian tube recanalization. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2021; 24 (01) 100736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Velling TE, Brennan FJ, Hall LD, Watabe JT. Role of the interventional radiologist in treating obstetric-gynecologic pathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175 (05) 1273-1278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Maubon A, Rouanet JP, Cover S, Courtieu C, Mares P. Fallopian tube recanalization by selective salpingography: an alternative to more invasive techniques?. Hum Reprod 1992; 7 (10) 1425-1428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 van Rijswijk J, Pham CT, Dreyer K. et al. Oil-based or water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2018; 110 (04) 754-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pinto ABM, Hovsepian DM, Wattanakumtornkul S, Pilgram TK. Pregnancy outcomes after fallopian tube recanalization: oil-based versus water-soluble contrast agents. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003; 14 (01) 69-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Al-Omari MH, Obeidat N, Elheis M, Khasawneh RA, Gharaibeh MM. Factors affecting pregnancy rate following fallopian tube recanalization in women with proximal fallopian tube obstruction. J Clin Med 2018; 7 (05) 110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wang JW, Rustia GM, Wood-Molo M. et al. Conception rates after fluoroscopy-guided fallopian tubal cannulation: an alternative to in vitro fertilization for patients with tubal occlusion. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2020; 14: 2633494120954248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Shen H, Cai M, Chen T. et al. Factors affecting the success of fallopian tube recanalization in treatment of tubal obstructive infertility. J Int Med Res 2020; 48 (12) 300060520979218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Al-Jaroudi D, Herba MJ, Tulandi T. Reproductive performance after selective tubal catheterization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005; 12 (02) 150-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Thurmond AS, Novy M, Uchida BT, Rösch J. Fallopian tube obstruction: selective salpingography and recanalization. Work in progress. Radiology 1987; 163 (02) 511-514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar