Surgery for the Infertile Patient | Article

This chapter should be cited as follows:
Gordts S, Campo R, Glob. libr. women's med.,
ISSN: 1756-2228; DOI 10.3843/GLOWM.421133

The Continuous Textbook of Women’s Medicine Series – Gynecology Module

Volume 15

Reproductive medicine for the obstetrician and gynecologist

Volume Editors: Professor Luca Gianaroli, S.I.S.Me.R. Reproductive Medicine Institute, Italy; Director of Global Educational Programs, IFFS
Professor Edgar Mocanu, RCSI Associate Professor in Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Rotunda Hospital, Ireland; President, IFFS
Professor Linda Giudice, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, USA; Immediate Past President, IFFS

Published in association with the
International Federation of
Fertility Societies

Chapter

Surgery for the Infertile Patient

First published: November 2024

AUTHORS

Stephan Gordts, MD

Leuven Institute for Fertility & Embryology, Leuven, Belgium; Life Expert Centre, Leuven, Belgium

Rudi Campo, MD

Leuven Institute for Fertility & Embryology, Leuven, Belgium; Life Expert Centre, Leuven, Belgium

Study Assessment Option

By completing 4 multiple-choice questions (randomly selected) after studying this chapter readers can qualify for Continuing Professional Development awards from FIGO plus a Study Completion Certificate from GLOWM
See end of chapter for details

INTRODUCTION

Reproductive surgery includes all the surgical procedures performed to diagnose, conserve, correct, and/or improve reproductive function.¹ It aims to restore normal uterine and tubo-ovarian function whenever possible by resolving the pathology and creating possibilities for spontaneous conception. As such it differs from gynecological or oncological surgery aiming to remove the diseased tissue. Within the era of reproductive medicine, reproductive surgery gained interest with the introduction of microsurgery principles beginning in 1970.²^,³^,⁴ These “gentle tissue handling” principles resulted in a spectacular improvement in pregnancy rates following microsurgical interventions. Later with the introduction of endoscopy (laparoscopy and hysteroscopy) from 1980 onwards and, if the same principles were applied, the results in terms of pregnancy rates were comparable to microsurgery and better in comparison with conventional laparotomy, or even conventional laparoscopy.

With the development of ART, reproductive surgery became less interesting and the uterine infertility factor seemed to be neglected in favor of high-technology ART procedures.

The introduction of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) within reproductive medicine has prompted questions to be asked about the relevance of reproductive surgery to reconstruction or treatment of the tubo-ovarian and peritoneal axis. Reproductive surgery is more than a competing discipline; in fact, it is complementary to IVF techniques. As a complementary discipline, reproductive surgery covers the field of tubal, ovarian, and peritoneal pathology and the correction of uterine congenital or acquired pathology. The role of surgery in reproduction is twofold. First, it offers a selected group of women the possibility of spontaneous conception in consecutive cycles and for consecutive pregnancies; as such, it favors high cumulative pregnancy rates. Second, it can add a complementary value in ameliorating pregnancy rates and live birth rates in women referred to IVF.⁵^,⁶

DIAGNOSIS

With the increased accuracy of ultrasound, diagnosis is frequently restricted to the use of these indirect imaging techniques. Though indispensable as a first screening method, their accuracy in the diagnosis of peritubal adhesions, minimal endometriosis, tubal pathology and uterine-endometrial pathology remains debatable. Direct visualization of the female pelvis and uterine cavity has been proven superior.⁷^,⁸^,⁹^,¹⁰ Standard laparoscopy for diagnostic purposes has been banned in the exploration of the female pelvis because of the invasiveness and the lack of laparoscopic equipment and training in many IVF centers.

Transvaginal hydro-laparoscopy (THL) has been proven to be a safe and minimally invasive procedure allowing direct visualization of the female pelvis under local anesthesia or sedation.¹¹^,¹² Transvaginal laparoscopy is performed as a simple needle puncture technique of the pouch of Douglas.

Hysteroscopy, proven to be a simple, highly accurate diagnostic methodology is not accepted as a routine exam in most IVF centers, even now that more and more evidence is provided that the combination of hysteroscopy, ultrasound, and transvaginal laparoscopy is the most accurate and complete exploration of the female reproductive organs which can be performed in an office setting, described as the digital hysteroscopic clinic.¹³

TUBAL PATHOLOGY

The expression “tubal pathology” includes abnormalities of the endosalpinx, salpingitis isthmica nodosa (SIN), partial or total obstructions of one or both tubes and/or peritubal and/or peri-ovarian adhesions affecting the normal ovum pick-up function. Tubal occlusion can be a consequence of a previously performed sterilization procedure, but it is most frequently a consequence of an infectious process with different degrees of affecting tubal mucosa and partial or complete obliteration of the tubal lumen. Tubal occlusions can be proximal, distal, or at both ends.

Proximal

Proximal tubal blockage accounts for 10–25% of tubal disease cases. It may be due to obstruction resulting from plugs of mucus and amorphous debris, to spasm of the utero-tubal ostium, or to occlusion, which is a true anatomic blockage from fibrosis due to SIN, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID),¹⁴ or tubal ligation. There is good evidence to support hysterosalpingography (HSG) as the standard first-line test to assess tubal patency, but it is limited by false positive diagnoses of proximal tubal blockage. Although not perfect, laparoscopy is considered the gold standard in the evaluation of tubal patency.¹⁵

Selective salpingography or hysteroscopic tubal cannulation may be treatment options for women with proximal tubal obstruction because these treatments improve the chance of pregnancy. Recanalization by guidewire is recommended especially if the blockage is close to the entrance of the Fallopian tube into the uterus¹⁶ (Figure 1). To avoid tubal perforation, laparoscopic control is advisable. A meta-analysis of studies treating patients with bilateral proximal tubal occlusion showed that the obstruction is relieved in about 85% of the tubes with tubal cannulation and that about half of the patients conceive. In case of failure of tubal cannulation, microsurgical tubal repair may be an option in the presence of the necessary surgical expertise.¹⁷

Hysteroscopic cannulation of left tubal ostium.

Tubal reversal

Based on the best available evidence, younger patients should be referred for tubal anastomosis in the absence of other fertility-impairing factors. In women younger than 40 years of age, the cumulative intrauterine pregnancy rate is more than 90% after microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization¹⁸^,¹⁹ (Figure 2). Even in women 40–45 years old, cumulative intrauterine pregnancy rates of 41.7–70.6% have been reported.²⁰^,²¹ A retrospective cohort study comparing IVF to tubal anastomosis reported that tubal anastomosis had a significantly higher cumulative pregnancy rate for women younger than 37 years of age, but there was no significant difference in women aged 37 years or older.²² In older patients, IVF can be suggested as the first treatment option, but in case of failed IVF, tubal reversal still stays a valid alternative.

Microsurgical tubal anastomosis. (a) Removal of clip; (b)–(c) visualization of tubal ostium and placement of second stitch; (d) closure sero-muscular layer.

DISTAL TUBAL PATHOLOGY

The beneficial effect of salpingectomy on IVF outcome in cases of thick-walled hydrosalpinges or ultrasonographical visible hydrosalpinges has been reported by several studies.²³^,²⁴ A Cochrane review showed that salpingectomy pre-IVF resulted in 1.75- and 2.13-fold higher odds of pregnancy and live birth, respectively.²⁵ However, systematic removal of hydrosalpinges before IVF will deprive several patients with thin-walled hydrosalpinges of the possibility of a spontaneous conception. The decision to repair or remove Fallopian tubes with distal disease has to be made perioperatively based upon the inspection of the tubal mucosa preferably by salpingoscopy. Pregnancy rates depend on the degree of tubal disease and are more favorable with good-prognosis patients. Intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates after neo-salpingostomy for mild hydrosalpinges range from 58% to 77% and from 2% to 8%, respectively.²⁶^,²⁷ Salpingostomy before IVF may improve the subsequent likelihood of IVF success while still allowing the patient to attempt spontaneous conception. Results of a European survey reported that in women younger than 35 years, and with minor tubal pathology, tubal surgery was considered the first-line treatment.²⁸ The evidence is fair to recommend laparoscopic fimbrioplasty or neo-salpingostomy for the treatment of mild hydrosalpinges in young women with no other significant infertility factors.

ENDOMETRIOSIS

The choice of treatment between IVF or surgery for endometriosis-related infertility in the absence of severe chronic pelvic pain remains a matter of debate.²⁹ The negative impact of ablative or excisional surgery on ovarian reserve and the subsequent impaired oocyte production after ovarian stimulation for IVF cannot be denied. Endometrioma <3–4 cm does not have a negative impact on IVF results, whereas larger endometrioma can reduce follicular development and increase difficulties at oocyte pickup. Nevertheless, minimally invasive surgery remains a valuable option for the treatment of ovarian endometriosis. There are three main reasons for opting for a surgical approach. First, the spontaneous pregnancy rates are approximately 50-60% when the surgical procedure is performed by skilled surgeons.³⁰^,³¹ Second, we cannot deny the progressive negative impact of the endometriotic disease by itself on ovarian reserve due to local inflammation and a progressive burnout of the follicles.³² Finally, as many of these patients complain of severe chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and dysmenorrhea, surgery is beneficial in pain relief. In a recent publication of a Fertile Battle,³³ surgery was opposed to IVF in the treatment of ovarian endometrioma favoring surgery in case of pain.

Concerning minimal ovarian and peritoneal endometriosis a retrospective study³⁴ reported a significantly longer time to spontaneous conception when untreated compared to controls.

Recently, ethanol sclerotherapy of ovarian endometrioma was reported as a minimally invasive approach with a less negative impact on the ovarian reserve and a pregnancy rate of 40%.³⁵^,³⁶ In the absence of other fertility impairing factors, we reported a spontaneous pregnancy rate of 73.2% after treatment of minimal endometriosis using the transvaginal endoscopic approach.³⁷

The debate on the treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) is limited to those patients without pain, although performing IVF in the presence of a deep nodule is questionable as a good practice and not without risk. A significant benefit of surgery for DIE before IVF was reported in a recent meta-analysis³⁸ showing a 2.22 times higher live birth rate in the operated group compared to the non-operated group.

ACQUIRED UTERINE PATHOLOGY

Uterine myoma

Fibroids are traditionally classified according to anatomical location and divided into submucous, intramural, or subserosal locations. Fibroids are the most common benign tumors of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on fertility. Recommendations as to which infertile women with fibroids would benefit from myomectomy are varied, given the potential risks and sequelae of surgery. The divergence in published data is a result of heterogeneity of available data, lack of standardization in size, number, and location of myoma, and different endpoints (e.g. pregnancy rates, abortion rates, and obstetric outcomes).³⁹ Transvaginal ultrasound can be used as a first screening method, but is less sensitive and less specific for diagnosing submucous myomas than hysteroscopy and infusion sonohysterography.

The location of a fibroid within the uterus influences its effect on fertility. It is assumed that the submucosal myomas have a deleterious effect on implantation with lower pregnancy rates and a higher incidence of fetal losses. Concerning intramural myomas it is accepted that they have a negative effect on implantation certainly for those with deformation of the uterine cavity, but whether myomectomy has a positive effect on further fertility is still unclear. Subserosal myomas do not affect fertility.⁴⁰

One randomized trial including 87 women with one intramural and/or subserosal fibroid smaller than 4 cm and otherwise unexplained infertility studied the effectiveness of surgery by laparoscopy or laparotomy compared to no surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes, although there was a trend in improving the pregnancy rate per patient at 12 months (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.75–1.9).⁴¹ Two randomized studies observed no differences in operative time or blood loss but noted that laparoscopy was associated with less postoperative pain, a shorter length of stay, and more rapid recovery;¹⁵^,¹⁶ one study also noted no significant differences in pregnancy and spontaneous abortion rates between the two techniques.⁴²^,⁴³

Hysteroscopic myomectomy is indicated for intracavitary myomas and submucous myomas having at least 50% of their volume within the uterine cavity. Myomas may be removed using hysteroscopic scissors, monopolar or bipolar electrosurgical techniques, or mechanical morcellators. In patients with submucosal fibroids with or without intramural fibroids and otherwise unexplained subfertility, hysteroscopic myomectomy doubles the pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6–2.9) as demonstrated by a meta-analysis of two randomized trials in 298 patients.⁴¹^,⁴⁴ The classification of uterine fibroids in clinicopathological studies may be based on their relationship with the junctional zone myometrium rather than on the impact on the uterine cavity.⁴⁵ Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and high-resolution ultrasound would be useful to delineate the junctional zone and to determine whether the junctional zone myometrium is involved in the disease process.

Adenomyosis

The development of high-resolution imaging techniques, particularly MRI, marked a real turning point in the acknowledgment of adenomyosis as an important disorder of the female reproductive tract. The subendometrial-myometrial zone, also called the junctional zone, can be clearly identified and differentiated from the outer myometrium which has the function of the muscle power of delivery.

Recent research has demonstrated that the junctional zone (JZ) is exam dependent and not a well-defined entity, as it differs in MRI from ultrasound and histology.⁴⁶

Adenomyosis is a histological definition and a hysteroscopic or hystero-ultrasound guided biopsy is mandatory to confirm the diagnosis.

The Campo Trophyscope® hysteroscope provides the possibility to use the outer sheet as a guide to insert an endometrial sampler or an endometrial–myometrial biopsy probe called the spirotome.¹³ The spirotome consists of a corkscrew and cutting sheet which permits the collection of a biopsy of up to 2 cm in length under ultrasound guidance. This technique claims to collect tissue with minimal risk of cell spreading and bleeding. In practice, after removing the spirotome the Trophy optic can be reinserted to inspect the area where the biopsy was collected.⁴⁷^,⁴⁸ Today, also the new 15 French IBS Shaver optic provides the possibility to insert the spirotome under direct vision giving the superior possibility of eye directed and ultrasound controlled sampling.

Like endometriosis, adenomyosis may present itself in various disguises, ranging from simple JZ thickening to nodular or diffuse lesions involving the entire uterine wall. Adenomyosis is likely to impair fertility through disturbed peristalsis of the junctional zone negatively affecting sperm transport. It is not very clear whether implantation as such is disturbed, but a possible higher rate of spontaneous abortion is reported.⁴⁹ In the case of diffuse adenomyosis, surgery is not a first treatment option. In women who wish to preserve their fertility, medical therapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agnonist (GnRHa) and GnRH antagonists seems to have a beneficial effect with reduction of the adenomyotic lesions and regression of abnormal uterine bleeding.⁵⁰ An adenomyoma can be removed both by hysteroscopy or laparoscopy, with results comparable to myomectomy in spite of the fact that borders are less defined. Focal adenomyosis or cystic structures located in the subendometrial area are treated by an operative hysteroscopy procedure.⁵¹ In case of diffuse adenomyosis, the triple flap technique by laparotomy is advocated.⁵²^,⁵³

Uterine niche

A uterine niche is defined as an indentation at the site of a cesarean section with a depth of at least 2 mm. Diagnosis is most accurately defined by gel or saline contrast sonography. Length, depth, and width should be measured, and also the residual and adjacent myometrial thickness in the sagittal plane.⁵⁴ The added value of hysteroscopic examination is dual. First, access to the uterine cavity can become very difficult due to displacement and stricture of the internal cervical ostium. Second, hysteroscopy allows visualization of whether the niche is filled with bloody vascular implants and the presence of blood and/or glair in the cavity in the peri-ovulatory phase. This information seems to be important for a well-prepared embryo transfer or IUI.

The presence of blood in the cavity can even interfere with the likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy. The persistent presence of blood creates a toxic environment for embryo implantation, through excessive iron content and higher amplitude of subendometrial contractions.⁵⁵ It negatively affects pregnancy rates even after IVF.⁵⁶^,⁵⁷ Treatment can be done through a laparoscopic, hysteroscopic, or vaginal approach. Hysteroscopic resection consists of shaving the distal rich of the niche allowing the drainage of menstrual blood; in order to reduce the risk of bladder injury, the residual myometrium thickness should be between 2.5 and 4 mm.⁵⁸^,⁵⁹^,⁶⁰ It seems to be more effective for small niches and less for relatively large niches. In the latter case, the laparoscopic or vaginal approach are recommended resulting in better postoperative results, and in contrast with the hysteroscopic approach they repairs the uterine wall thickness.⁶¹ Reported results of laparoscopic niche repair are an improvement of symptoms in nearly 77% of patients, restoration of fertility in 73%, and decreased time to conception.⁶²

UTERINE CONGENITAL ANOMALIES

Following the ESHRE/ESGE classification,⁶³ the uterine deformations of class U1 (dysmorphic ) and class U2 sub-septus seem the most relevant anomalies in reproductive medicine. There is no doubt that the incidence of uterine malformations U1 and U2 is higher in the infertile population and that it influences the pregnancy outcome in IVF.

The current controversies result from the fact that different diagnostic methods have different levels of accuracy and there is subjectivity in the criteria used to classify anomalies, especially hysteroscopy has a significant interobserver variation.

A prospective cohort study by Neal et al.⁶⁴ performing 3D ultrasound in 648 patients defining uterine cavity morphology the day before embryo transfer, demonstrates that T-shaped uterine cavity morphology is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes after transfer of a single thawed euploid blastocyst

New diagnostic methods like 3D ultrasound and the combination of HSC and ultrasound challenge the definitions and interpretation of uterine cavity deformation. As such the Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME) criteria⁶⁵ have contributed to better defining the dysmorphic uterus. Although the hysteroscopic criteria do not equal the ultrasound ones, by using only the hysteroscopic criteria, Ferro demonstrated in patients with failed IVF, in the IVI clinic of Valencia, that after reconstruction of the cavity with the micro-scissors, 77.9% (147/190) delivered and the abortion rate was only 8.9%.⁶⁶^,⁷⁷ This study has a significant value because it is a single center, single observer, surgeon study with both IVF and hysteroscopic surgery approved champion class.

All other studies with a single surgeon approach per center have similar results.⁶⁷^,⁶⁸^,⁶⁹^,⁷⁰

Nawroth observed an increased interval of pregnancy seeking in patients with septa with otherwise unexplained primary and secondary infertility.⁷¹ Homer et al.⁷² compared the reproductive outcome before and after hysteroscopic metroplasty, resulting in a decreased abortion rate from 88% before to 14% after metroplasty and an increased live birth rate from 3% before to 80% after. Although the role of metroplasty in infertility remains debated, this study reported an overall crude pregnancy rate of 48% after metroplasty.

The anomalies of the uterus can affect endometrial receptivity, resulting in implantation failure with pregnancy loss or infertility. They can be the reason for prolonged pregnancy seeking in women with so-called ‘idiopathic infertility’.⁷³

Two recent meta-analyses reported a better reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty.⁷⁴^,⁷⁵ In patients with infertility or recurrent abortions, data support the correction of the uterine anomaly. In the hands of experienced hysteroscopist complications are rare.

For the above reasons, Rikken et al.⁷⁶ study cannot be accepted, and their conclusions must be seen as scientifically debatable. This study was criticized because of the lack of standardization of diagnostic methods, the long recruiting time of 19 years, the many centers involved, and the lack of surgical quality control and postoperative control hysteroscopy. Dysmorphic and septate uterus are the most frequent malformations seen in the infertile patient. Hysteroscopic metroplasty prior to ART or in the case of recurrent abortions is associated with an improvement in the achievement of pregnancy and in pregnancy outcome. In an individual case where a U1 or U2 malformation has been diagnosed accidentally, we do not yet have the possibility to predict the future reproductive capacity of the individual. There is an urgent need for a clear definition of the normal uterus and diagnostic and surgical recommendations to reduce interobserver variability.

CONCLUSION

Techniques in MAR (medically assisted reproduction) improved resulting in the perception of a diminished need for reproductive surgery. However, the possibilities of reproductive surgery have also changed over the years with the development of new technologies and instrumentation and new indications for surgical repair. Technical evolution in the field of imaging provides us with more information on different organs and more particularly on the uterus including cesarean scar defects, dysmorphic uteri, and adenomyosis. Reproductive laparoscopic skills will be necessary for new fields of fertility preservation and the further development of uterine transplantation. To optimize the outcome of reproductive surgery there will be a continuous need for skilled reproductive surgeons, skills which in many places are no longer available. Therefore, continuous training and accreditation programs are mandatory to reach the highest standards in reproductive surgery. Centers of excellence in reproductive medicine should combine the highest standards in MAR technologies and possibilities of reproductive surgery. ESHRE/ESGE and others have defined a validated program of certification and diploma in reproductive and minimal invasive surgery called GESEA (www.GESEA.eu). It is the first step in standardization of the surgical skills. Each IVF center should have access to a level 2 or 3 ECRES-accredited surgeon.

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

Diagnosis:

Transvaginal ultrasound is the first-line screening method in patients with infertility for evaluation of the female pelvis.
The combination of HSC and ultrasound provides a higher diagnostic accuracy than indirect imaging and can be performed without any form of anesthesia in an office setting.
Only direct endoscopic visualization allows the detection of peritubal adhesions, fimbrial pathology and minimal endometriosis.
Transvaginal hydro-laparoscopy (THL) offers a minimally invasive diagnostic procedure allowing a visual inspection of the pelvis in an office setting.

Tubal pathology:

After tubal sterilization, in patients younger than 40 years, microsurgical tubal anastomosis should be discussed as a first-line treatment option.
In cases of proximal tubal blockage, tubal cannulation or selective salpingography should be considered as the first-line treatment option. Tubal repair should be restricted to centers with the necessary expertise.

Distal tubal pathology

In the presence of hydrosalpinges, the decision to perform salpingectomy or salpingostomy should be based on the quality of the tubal mucosa.
Systematic salpingectomy before IVF will deprive several patients with thin-walled hydrosalpinges of the possibility of a spontaneous conception.
There is good quality evidence for recommending laparoscopic salpingectomy or proximal tubal occlusion in cases of surgically irreparable hydrosalpinges to improve IVF pregnancy rates.

Endometriosis:

In selected patients, reproductive surgery in the case of ovarian endometrioma results in a spontaneous pregnancy rate of 50–60%. Individualized treatment options should be discussed with the patient.
The use of ethanol sclerotherapy for endometrioma offers a possible treatment option with a probability of less impact on the ovarian reserve.
The presence of chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and/or dyspareunia favors a surgical approach.
There is good evidence that endometriosis does not affect the pregnancy rate after IVF.

Acquired uterine pathology:

Intracavitary and submucous myomas negatively affect pregnancy rates and hysteroscopic removal is recommended.
There is evidence that intramural myomas encroaching on the uterine cavity decrease implantation and pregnancy rates.
In patients of advanced maternal age or with repeated IVF failures, the presence of adenomyosis should be excluded by 3D ultrasound, MRI, and hysteroscopy with endo-myometrial biopsy.
Laparoscopic or abdominal surgery is not a first-line treatment option in the presence of adenomyosis and medical hormonal suppression is recommended.
As the presence of a uterine niche negatively affects implantation and pregnancy rates and increases the risk of uterine rupture in case of pregnancy, surgical correction is indicated.

Uterine congenital anomalies:

There is fair evidence that uterine septa or a dysmorphic uterus increase abortion rates and negatively affect live birth rates. Dysmorphic U1 uteri also have an increased risk of extrauterine pregnancy.
Patient counseling should be performed correctly, mentioning the above information and the lack of evidence that young women with a U1 or U2 should be immediately treated surgically.
Metroplasty is recommended in patients with infertility, recurrent miscarriage, or before referral to IVF.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Feedback

Publishers’ note: We are constantly trying to update and enhance chapters in this Series. So if you have any constructive comments about this chapter please provide them to us by selecting the "Your Feedback" link in the left-hand column.

REFERENCES

1	Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril 2009;92(5):1520–4.
2	Swolin K. [Contribution to the surgical treatment of female sterility. Experimental and clinical studies]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1967;46(Suppl 14):1–20.
3	Gomel V. Microsurgery in infertility. Int J Fertil 1978;23(4):244–5.
4	Boeckx W, Gordts S, Vasquez G, et al. Microsurgery in gynecology. Int Surg 1981;66(1):47–52.
5	Gordts S. New developments in reproductive surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013;27(3):431–40.
6	Medicine PCotASfR. The role of tubal reconstructive surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2006;86(5 Suppl 1):S31–4.
7	Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, et al. Investigation of the infertile couple: a one-stop outpatient endoscopy-based approach. Hum Reprod 2002;17(7):1684–7.
8	Bosteels J, Van Herendael B, Weyers S, et al. The position of diagnostic laparoscopy in current fertility practice. Hum Reprod Update 2007;13(5):477–85.
9	Tanahatoe S, Lambalk C, McDonnell J, et al. Diagnostic laparoscopy is needed after abnormal hysterosalpingography to prevent over-treatment with IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;16(3):410–5.
10	Campo R, Molinas CR, Rombauts L, et al. Prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate factors influencing the success rate of office diagnostic hysteroscopy. Hum Reprod 2005;20(1):258–63.
11	Gordts S, Campo R, Rombauts L, et al. Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy as an outpatient procedure for infertility investigation. Hum Reprod 1998;13(1):99–103.
12	Gordts S, Gordts S, Puttemans P, et al. Systematic use of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy as a minimally invasive procedure in the exploration of the infertile patient: results and reflections. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2021;13(2):131–40.
13	Campo R, Santangelo F, Gordts S, et al. Outpatient hysteroscopy. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2018;10(3):115–22.
14	Honoré GM, Holden AE, Schenken RS. Pathophysiology and management of proximal tubal blockage. Fertil Steril 1999;71(5):785–95.
15	Mol BW, Collins JA, Burrows EA, et al. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in predicting fertility outcome. Hum Reprod 1999;14(5):1237–42.
16	Woolcott R, Petchpud A, O'Donnell P, et al. Differential impact on pregnancy rate of selective salpingography, tubal catheterization and wire-guide recanalization in the treatment of proximal fallopian tube obstruction. Hum Reprod 1995;10(6):1423–6.
17	Watrelot A, Chauvin G. Current practice in tubal surgery and adhesion management: a review. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;23(1):53–62.
18	Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril 2009;92(4):1198–202.
19	Boeckx W, Gordts S, Buysse K, et al. Reversibility after female sterilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93(8):839–42.
20	Trimbos-Kemper TC. Reversal of sterilization in women over 40 years of age: a multicenter survey in The Netherlands. Fertil Steril 1990;53(3):575–7.
21	Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Nos C, et al. Sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod 1995;10(5):1145–51.
22	Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, et al. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod 2007;22(10):2660–4.
23	Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenström U, et al. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: cumulative results after salpingectomy in a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2001;16(11):2403–10.
24	Camus E, Poncelet C, Goffinet F, et al. Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies. Hum Reprod 1999;14(5):1243–9.
25	Johnson NP, Mak W, Sowter MC. Laparoscopic salpingectomy for women with hydrosalpinges enhances the success of IVF: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2002;17(3):543–8.
26	De Bruyne F, Puttemans P, Boeckx W, et al. The clinical value of salpingoscopy in tubal infertility. Fertil Steril 1989;51(2):339–40.
27	Audebert A, Pouly JL, Bonifacie B, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for distal tubal occlusions: lessons learned from a historical series of 434 cases. Fertil Steril 2014;102(4):1203–8.
28	Daniilidis A, Nisolle M, Papandreou P, et al. A European survey on treatment of hydrosalpinges in infertile women on behalf of the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) Special Interest Group (SIG) on Reproductive Surgery. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2020;12(3):241–4.
29	Becker CM, Bokor A, Heikinheimo O, et al. ESHRE guideline: endometriosis. Hum Reprod Open 2022;2022(2):hoac009.
30	Gordts S, Boeckx W, Brosens I. Microsurgery of endometriosis in infertile patients. Fertil Steril 1984;42(4):520–5.
31	Donnez J, Lousse JC, Jadoul P, et al. Laparoscopic management of endometriomas using a combined technique of excisional (cystectomy) and ablative surgery. Fertil Steril 2010;94(1):28–32.
32	Kitajima M, Dolmans MM, Donnez O, et al. Enhanced follicular recruitment and atresia in cortex derived from ovaries with endometriomas. Fertil Steril 2014;101(4):1031–7.
33	Lessey BA, Gordts S, Donnez O, et al. Ovarian endometriosis and infertility: in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surgery as the first approach? Fertil Steril 2018;110(7):1218–26.
34	Akande VA, Hunt LP, Cahill DJ, et al. Differences in time to natural conception between women with unexplained infertility and infertile women with minor endometriosis. Hum Reprod 2004;19(1):96–103.
35	Roman H. Laparoscopic Sclerotherapy of Large Endometriomas: Is It a Reasonable Approach? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2020;27(6):1223–4.
36	Crestani A, Merlot B, Dennis T, et al. Impact of Laparoscopic Sclerotherapy for Ovarian Endometriomas on Ovarian Reserve. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2023;30(1):32–8.
37	Gordts S, Puttemans P, Segaert I, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of early-stage endometriosis by Transvaginal Hydro laparoscopy. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2023;15(1):45–52.
38	Casals G, Carrera M, Domínguez JA, et al. Impact of Surgery for Deep Infiltrative Endometriosis before In Vitro Fertilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2021;28(7):1303–12.e5.
39	Donnez J, Jadoul P. What are the implications of myomas on fertility? A need for a debate? Hum Reprod 2002;17(6):1424–30.
40	Pritts EA, Parker WH, Olive DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril 2009;91(4):1215–23.
41	Casini ML, Rossi F, Agostini R, et al. Effects of the position of fibroids on fertility. Gynecol Endocrinol 2006;22(2):106–9.
42	Mais V, Ajossa S, Guerriero S, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal myomectomy: a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate benefits in early outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174(2):654–8.
43	Seracchioli R, Rossi S, Govoni F, et al. Fertility and obstetric outcome after laparoscopic myomectomy of large myomata: a randomized comparison with abdominal myomectomy. Hum Reprod 2000;15(12):2663–8.
44	Shokeir T, El-Shafei M, Yousef H, et al. Submucous myomas and their implications in the pregnancy rates of patients with otherwise unexplained primary infertility undergoing hysteroscopic myomectomy: a randomized matched control study. Fertil Steril 2010;94(2):724–9.
45	Brosens J, Campo R, Gordts S, et al. Submucous and outer myometrium leiomyomas are two distinct clinical entities. Fertil Steril 2003;79(6):1452–4.
46	Harmsen MJ, Trommelen LM, de Leeuw RA, et al. Multidisciplinary view on uterine junctional zone in uteri affected by adenomyosis: explaining discrepancies between MRI and transvaginal ultrasound images on a microscopic level. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022.
47	Cornelis A, Verjans M, Van den Bosch T, et al. Efficacy and safety of direct and frontal macrobiopsies in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev 2009;18(4):280–4.
48	Janssens JP, Rotenberg L, Sentis M, et al. Caution with microbiopsies of the breast: displaced cancer cells and ballistics. Eur J Cancer Prev 2006;15(6):471–3.
49	Martínez-Conejero JA, Morgan M, Montesinos M, et al. Adenomyosis does not affect implantation, but is associated with miscarriage in patients undergoing oocyte donation. Fertil Steril 2011;96(4):943–50.
50	Donnez J, Stratopoulou CA, Dolmans MM. Uterine Adenomyosis: From Disease Pathogenesis to a New Medical Approach Using GnRH Antagonists. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18(19).
51	Di Spiezio Sardo A, Calagna G, Santangelo F, et al. The Role of Hysteroscopy in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Adenomyosis. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:2518396.
52	Osada H. Uterine adenomyosis and adenomyoma: the surgical approach. Fertil Steril 2018;109(3):406–17.
53	Osada H, Silber S, Kakinuma T, et al. Surgical procedure to conserve the uterus for future pregnancy in patients suffering from massive adenomyosis. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22(1):94–9.
54	Jordans IPM, de Leeuw RA, Stegwee SI, et al. Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019;53(1):107–15.
55	Jordans IPM, Vissers J, Huang Y, et al. Increased amplitude of subendometrial contractions identified by ultrasound speckle tracking in women with a caesarean scar defect. Reprod Biomed Online 2023;46(3):577–87.
56	Zhang Y, de Ziegler D, Hu X, et al. Previous caesarean delivery and the presence of caesarean scar defects could affect pregnancy outcomes after in vitro fertilization frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022;22(1):769.
57	Diao J, Gao G, Zhang Y, et al. Caesarean section defects may affect pregnancy outcomes after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: a retrospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021;21(1):487.
58	Gubbini G, Casadio P, Marra E. Resectoscopic correction of the "isthmocele" in women with postmenstrual abnormal uterine bleeding and secondary infertility. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15(2):172–5.
59	Di Spiezio Sardo A, Zizolfi B, Calagna G, et al. Hysteroscopic Isthmoplasty: Step-by-Step Technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25(2):338–9.
60	Vervoort AJ, Van der Voet LF, Witmer M, et al. The HysNiche trial: hysteroscopic resection of uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in patients with abnormal bleeding, a randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens Health 2015;15:103.
61	Donnez O. Cesarean scar defects: management of an iatrogenic pathology whose prevalence has dramatically increased. Fertil Steril 2020;113(4):704–16.
62	Nezhat C, Zaghi B, Baek K, et al. Outcomes of Laparoscopic Cesarean Scar Defect Repair: Retrospective and Observational Study. J Clin Med 2023;12(11).
63	Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, et al. The ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Gynecol Surg 2013;10(3):199–212.
64	Neal SA, Morin SJ, Werner MD, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of T-shaped uterus is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes after embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2019;39(5):777–83.
65	Ludwin A, Coelho Neto MA, Ludwin I, et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): diagnostic criteria for T-shaped uterus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020;55(6):815–29.
66	Ferro J, Labarta E, Sanz C, et al. Reproductive outcomes after hysteroscopic metroplasty for women with dysmorphic uterus and recurrent implantation failure. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2018;10(2):63–8.
67	Di Spiezio Sardo A, Campo R, Zizolfi B, et al. Long-Term Reproductive Outcomes after Hysteroscopic Treatment of Dysmorphic Uteri in Women with Reproductive Failure: An European Multicenter Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2020;27(3):755–62.
68	Sánchez-Santiuste M, Ríos M, Calles L, et al. Dysmorphic Uteri: Obstetric Results after Hysteroscopic Office Metroplasty in Infertile and Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Patients. A Prospective Observational Study. J Clin Med 2020;9(9).
69	Boza A, Akin OD, Oguz SY, et al. Surgical correction of T-shaped uteri in women with reproductive failure: Long term anatomical and reproductive outcomes. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2019;48(1):39–44.
70	Alonso Pacheco L, Laganà AS, Garzon S, et al. Hysteroscopic outpatient metroplasty for T-shaped uterus in women with reproductive failure: Results from a large prospective cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019;243:173–8.
71	Nawroth F, Schmidt T, Freise C, et al. [Uterus septus with primary infertility – an operating indication?]. Zentralbl Gynakol 2001;123(11):644–7.
72	Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 2000;73(1):1–14.
73	Pabuçcu R, Gomel V. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with septate uterus and otherwise unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 2004;81(6):1675–8.
74	Noventa M, Spagnol G, Marchetti M, et al. Uterine Septum with or without Hysteroscopic Metroplasty: Impact on Fertility and Obstetrical Outcomes-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Research. J Clin Med 2022;11(12).
75	Carrera M, Pérez Millan F, Alcázar JL, et al. Effect of Hysteroscopic Metroplasty on Reproductive Outcomes in Women with Septate Uterus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2022;29(4):465–75.
76	Rikken JFW, Kowalik CR, Emanuel MH, et al. Septum resection versus expectant management in women with a septate uterus: an international multicentre open-label randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2021;36(5):1260–7.
77	Ferro J, Labarta E, Sanz C, Montoya P, Remohi J. Reproductive outcomes after hysteroscopic metroplasty for women with dysmorphic uterus and recurrent implantation failure. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2018 Jun;10(2):63-68. PMID: 31110644; PMCID: PMC6516190.

Online Study Assessment Option
All readers who are qualified doctors or allied medical professionals can now automatically receive 2 Continuing Professional Development credits from FIGO plus a Study Completion Certificate from GLOWM for successfully answering 4 multiple choice questions (randomly selected) based on the study of this chapter.
Medical students can receive the Study Completion Certificate only.

(To find out more about FIGO’s Continuing Professional Development awards programme CLICK HERE)

Navigation