Comparison of long-term pregnancy outcomes between neosalpingostomy and salpingectomy for infertile women with bilateral severe hydrosalpinx

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2023.06.009

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective ·To compare the pregnancy outcomes of infertile women with bilateral severe hydrosalpinx receiving neosalpingostomy or salpingectomy. Methods ·The single-center prospective cohort study from 2005 to 2012 focused on pregnancy outcomes of infertile women aged 20?40 years, with bilateral severe hydrosalpinx, undergoing bilateral neosalpingostomy or salpingectomy in International Peace Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. The choice for treatment was based on a shared decision approach, and the participants were divided into the neosalpingostomy group and salpingectomy group. After registration of baseline characteristics, including age, birth place, reproductive history, preoperative hysterosalpingography results, surgical findings, and pregnancy outcomes, women were followed up on an annual basis until July 2020 for the occurrence of live birth by outpatient follow-up or telephone questionnaire. Intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis were applied to compare the pregnancy outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analysis and COX proportional hazard model were used to analyze the reproductive outcomes. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed based on age stratification. The main outcome measures were live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and factors affecting live birth. Secondary outcome measures included the mode of conception, time to live birth, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical miscarriage rate, and ectopic pregnancy rate. Results ·A total of 113 women were included in the analysis, 58 women underwent bilateral neosalpingostomy, and 55 women underwent bilateral salpingectomy. The study demonstrated that in infertile women with bilateral severe hydrosalpinx, bilateral salpingectomy achieved higher cumulative live birth rate than bilateral neosalpingostomy (76.36% vs 62.07, HR=2.18,95%CI 1.37?3.45). In the neosalpingostomy group, 34.48% (20/58) live births were obtained after in vitro fertilization treatment, and 27.59% (16/58) live births were obtained through spontaneous conception which mainly occurred within 3 years after initial neosalpingostomy, while all live births in the salpingectomy group were obtained after assisted reproductive therapy. However, the risk of ectopic pregnancy was higher in the neosalpingostomy group than that in the salpingectomy group (20.69% vs 1.82%, P<0.001). No statistically significant differences regarding biochemical pregnancy and clinical miscarriage between the two groups were found. During the subgroup analysis, the cumulative live birth rate of the salpingectomy group (n=51) was significantly higher than that of the neosalpingostomy group (n=48) in women younger than 35 years old (HR=2.25, 95%CI 1.39?3.66), while between two groups of women aged 35 years old or older, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative live birth rate (HR=1.60, 95%CI 0.36?7.19). In addition, after adjustment for confounding factors including age, previous abortion history, fibroid, benign ovarian cyst, and endometriosis, COX proportional hazard analysis revealed that salpingectomy was positively correlated to live birth compared with neosalpingostomy (aHR=1.94, 95%CI 1.18?3.18). Conclusion ·For infertile women with bilateral severe hydrosalpinx, neosalpingostomy provides the possibility for spontaneous conception but also brings about certain risk of ectopic pregnancy. Bilateral salpingectomy can achieve higher cumulative live birth rate while receiving postoperative in vitro fertilization treatment.

Key words: hydrosalpinx, tubal subfertility, neosalpingostomy, salpingectomy, live birth rate

CLC Number:

R713.5

YAN Li, WANG Yang, LIU Xiaoyi, PAN Yilian, ZHU Minjiao, LIU Jinglan, ZHANG Jian. Comparison of long-term pregnancy outcomes between neosalpingostomy and salpingectomy for infertile women with bilateral severe hydrosalpinx[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2023, 43(6): 728-737.

Figures/Tables 6

TrendMD

References 24

1	NG K Y B, CHEONG Y. Hydrosalpinx: salpingostomy, salpingectomy or tubal occlusion[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2019, 59: 41-47.
2	HONORÉ G M, HOLDEN A E, SCHENKEN R S. Pathophysiology and management of proximal tubal blockage[J]. Fertil Steril, 1999, 71(5): 785-795.
3	Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a committee opinion[J]. Fertil Steril, 2015, 103(6): e37-e43.
4	KELTZ M, BROWN E C, FRISHMAN G N, et al. Fluoroscopically-guided hysteroscopic tubal cannulation: a procedure for proximal tubal obstruction[J]. JSLS, 2022, 26(4): e2022.00047.
5	MELO P, GEORGIOU E X, JOHNSON N, et al. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, 10(10): CD002125.
6	YU X M, CAI H, GUAN J, et al. Laparoscopic surgery: any role in patients with unexplained infertility and failed in vitro fertilization cycles?[J]. Medicine, 2019, 98(13): e14957.
7	CAPMAS P, SUARTHANA E, TULANDI T. Management of hydrosalpinx in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2021, 28(3): 418-441.
8	GORDTS S. New developments in reproductive surgery[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2013, 27(3): 431-440.
9	OBRZUT B, OBRZUT M. Is there still a place for reconstructive surgery in distal tubal disease?[J]. J Clin Med, 2022, 11(12): 3278.
10	PONOMAREV V V, ZHUYKO A A, ARTYUSHKOV V V, et al. Our experience in laparoscopic treatment of tubo: peritoneal infertility[J]. Gynecol Surg, 2009, 6(S1): S149-S150.
11	CHU J, HARB H M, GALLOS I D, et al. Salpingostomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinx: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Hum Reprod, 2015, 30(8): 1882-1895.
12	YU X M, CAI H, ZHENG X B, et al. Tubal restorative surgery for hydrosalpinges in women due to in vitro fertilization[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2018, 297(5): 1169-1173.
13	DREYER K, LIER M I, EMANUEL M H, et al. Hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion versus laparoscopic salpingectomy as a treatment for hydrosalpinges prior to IVF or ICSI: an RCT[J]. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31(9): 2005-2016.
14	TEEDE H, DEEKS A, MORAN L. Polycystic ovary syndrome: a complex condition with psychological, reproductive and metabolic manifestations that impacts on health across the lifespan[J]. BMC Med, 2010, 8: 41.
15	SHARMA J B, MALHOTRA M, ARORA R. Incidential Fitz-Hugh-Curtis syndrome at laparoscopy for benign gynecologic conditions[J]. Int J Gynecol Obstet, 2002, 79(3): 237-240.
16	The American Fertility Society. Revised American fertility society classification of endometriosis: 1985[J]. Fertil Steril, 1985, 43(3): 351-352.
17	MILINGOS S D, KALLIPOLITIS G K, LOUTRADIS D C, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of hydrosalpinx: factors affecting pregnancy rate[J]. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparoscopists, 2000, 7(3): 355-361.
18	TEOH T G, KONDAVEETI U, DARLING M R N. The management of female infertility by tubal microsurgical reconstruction: a ten year review[J]. Ir J Med Sci, 1995, 164(3): 212-214.
19	The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions[J]. Fertil Steril, 1988, 49(6): 944-955.
20	BOER-MEISEL M E, TE VELDE E R, HABBEMA J D, et al. Predicting the pregnancy outcome in patients treated for hydrosalpinx: a prospective study[J]. Fertil Steril, 1986, 45(1): 23-29.
21	CHONG A P. Pregnancy outcome in neosalpingostomy by the cuff vs Bruhat technique using the carbon dioxide laser[J]. J Gynecol Surg, 1991, 7(4): 207-210.
22	HAO H J, WANG Z H, FENG L, et al. Which patients with hydrosalpinx will benefit more from reproductive surgery to improve natural pregnancy outcomes?: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Medicine, 2023, 102(8): e32806.
23	TAYLOR R C, BERKOWITZ J, MCCOMB P F. Role of laparoscopic salpingostomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinx[J]. Fertil Steril, 2001, 75(3): 594-600.
24	AKANDE V A, CAHILL D J, WARDLE P G, et al. The predictive value of the 'Hull & Rutherford' classification for tubal damage[J]. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol, 2004, 111(11): 1236-1241.

Item	Salpingectomy group (n=55)	Salpingostomy group (n=58)	P value
Age/year	30.53±3.73	29.74±3.66	0.293
Birth place/n(%)			0.772
Shanghai	43 (78.18)	44 (75.86)
Outside of Shanghai	12 (21.82)	14 (24.14)
Miscarriage/n(%)			NA
No	2 (3.64)	0 (0)
Yes	53 (96.36)	58 (100.00)
Abortion/n(%)			0.523
No	28 (50.91)	26 (44.83)
Yes	27 (49.09)	32 (55.17)
Polycystic ovarian syndrome/n(%)			0.724
No	53 (96.36)	54 (93.10)
Yes	2 (3.64)	4 (6.90)
Leiomyoma/n(%)			0.676
No	49 (89.09)	53 (91.38)
Yes	6 (10.91)	5 (8.62)
Adenomyoma/n(%)			NA
No	54 (98.18)	58 (100.00)
Yes	1 (1.82)	0 (0)
Endometrial polyp/n(%)			0.815
No	50 (90.91)	52 (89.66)
Yes	5 (9.09)	6 (10.34)
Benign ovarian cyst/n(%)			NA
No	52 (94.55)	58 (100.00)
Yes	3 (5.45)	0 (0)
Mullerian duct cyst/n(%)			NA
No	55 (100.00)	55 (94.83)
Yes	0 (0)	3 (5.17)
Fitz-Hugh-Curtis syndrome/n(%)			1.003
No	53 (96.36)	56 (96.55)
Yes	2 (3.64)	2 (3.45)
Endometriosis/n(%)			0.394
No	53 (96.36)	50 (86.20)
Stage 1‒2	1 (1.82)	4 (6.90)
Stage 3‒4	1 (1.82)	4 (6.90)

Item	Salpingectomy group (n=55)	Salpingostomy group (n=58)	P value
Age/year	30.53±3.73	29.74±3.66	0.293
Birth place/n(%)			0.772
Shanghai	43 (78.18)	44 (75.86)
Outside of Shanghai	12 (21.82)	14 (24.14)
Miscarriage/n(%)			NA
No	2 (3.64)	0 (0)
Yes	53 (96.36)	58 (100.00)
Abortion/n(%)			0.523
No	28 (50.91)	26 (44.83)
Yes	27 (49.09)	32 (55.17)
Polycystic ovarian syndrome/n(%)			0.724
No	53 (96.36)	54 (93.10)
Yes	2 (3.64)	4 (6.90)
Leiomyoma/n(%)			0.676
No	49 (89.09)	53 (91.38)
Yes	6 (10.91)	5 (8.62)
Adenomyoma/n(%)			NA
No	54 (98.18)	58 (100.00)
Yes	1 (1.82)	0 (0)
Endometrial polyp/n(%)			0.815
No	50 (90.91)	52 (89.66)
Yes	5 (9.09)	6 (10.34)
Benign ovarian cyst/n(%)			NA
No	52 (94.55)	58 (100.00)
Yes	3 (5.45)	0 (0)
Mullerian duct cyst/n(%)			NA
No	55 (100.00)	55 (94.83)
Yes	0 (0)	3 (5.17)
Fitz-Hugh-Curtis syndrome/n(%)			1.003
No	53 (96.36)	56 (96.55)
Yes	2 (3.64)	2 (3.45)
Endometriosis/n(%)			0.394
No	53 (96.36)	50 (86.20)
Stage 1‒2	1 (1.82)	4 (6.90)
Stage 3‒4	1 (1.82)	4 (6.90)

Item	ITT analysis			PP analysis
Item	Neosalpingostomy group (n=58)	Salpingectomy group (n=55)	P value	Neosalpingostomy group (n=50)	Salpingectomy group (n=55)	P value
Primary outcome
Live birth rate/n(%)	36 (62.07)	42 (76.36)	0.104^①	28 (56.00)	42 (76.36)	0.034^①
Secondary outcome
Mode of conception/n(%)
Spontaneous conception	16 (27.59)	0 (0)	NA	16 (32.00)	0 (0)	NA
IVF treatment	20 (34.48)	42 (76.36)	<0.001^①	12 (24.00)	42 (76.36)	<0.001^①
Gestational age at delivery/week	38.40 (37.60, 39.90)	38.40 (36.85, 38.90)	0.258^②	38.75 (37.80, 40.00)	38.40 (36.85, 38.90)	0.182^②
Biochemical pregnancy/n(%)	37(63.79)	42 (76.36)	0.163^①	29 (58.00)	42 (76.36)	0.054^①
Clinical miscarriage/n(%)	3(5.17)	5 (9.09)	0.417^①	3 (6.00)	5 (9.09)	0.548^①
Ectopic pregnancy/n(%)	12 (20.69)	1 (1.82)	<0.001^①	8 (16.00)	1 (1.82)	0.013^①
Time to first live birth/month
Spontaneous conception	23.00 (15.50, 43.50)	‒	NA	23.00 (15.50, 43.50)	‒	NA
IVF treatment	58.00 (34.00, 83.50)	19.25 (13.80, 27.50)	<0.001^②	55.20 (24.50, 81.00)	19.25 (13.80, 27.50)	<0.001^②

Item	ITT analysis			PP analysis
Item	Neosalpingostomy group (n=58)	Salpingectomy group (n=55)	P value	Neosalpingostomy group (n=50)	Salpingectomy group (n=55)	P value
Primary outcome
Live birth rate/n(%)	36 (62.07)	42 (76.36)	0.104^①	28 (56.00)	42 (76.36)	0.034^①
Secondary outcome
Mode of conception/n(%)
Spontaneous conception	16 (27.59)	0 (0)	NA	16 (32.00)	0 (0)	NA
IVF treatment	20 (34.48)	42 (76.36)	<0.001^①	12 (24.00)	42 (76.36)	<0.001^①
Gestational age at delivery/week	38.40 (37.60, 39.90)	38.40 (36.85, 38.90)	0.258^②	38.75 (37.80, 40.00)	38.40 (36.85, 38.90)	0.182^②
Biochemical pregnancy/n(%)	37(63.79)	42 (76.36)	0.163^①	29 (58.00)	42 (76.36)	0.054^①
Clinical miscarriage/n(%)	3(5.17)	5 (9.09)	0.417^①	3 (6.00)	5 (9.09)	0.548^①
Ectopic pregnancy/n(%)	12 (20.69)	1 (1.82)	<0.001^①	8 (16.00)	1 (1.82)	0.013^①
Time to first live birth/month
Spontaneous conception	23.00 (15.50, 43.50)	‒	NA	23.00 (15.50, 43.50)	‒	NA
IVF treatment	58.00 (34.00, 83.50)	19.25 (13.80, 27.50)	<0.001^②	55.20 (24.50, 81.00)	19.25 (13.80, 27.50)	<0.001^②