The fallopian tube plays a critical role in conception as the site of ovum transport, sperm capacitation, fertilization, and embryo transport.¹ The tube measures an estimated 9 to 11 cm, and narrows from the ciliated infundibulum and ampulla to the medial one-third of isthmus before funneling into the interstitial segment of the myometrium. The ampulla measures 5 to 9 cm and is necessary for fertilization and early embryogenesis.²

Tubal disease is identified in up to 30% of couples undergoing an infertility investigation, and both reconstructive surgery and in vitro fertilization (IVF) are treatment options. In the past decade, IVF success rates have increased from 10% in the 1980s to more than 30% according to national data banks.³ In contrast, success rates for most forms of tubal surgery have remained relatively constant during the same interval. Given improvements in IVF, it is now the treatment of choice for many types of tubal injury, particularly for couples with multiple infertility diagnoses. Surgery, however, remains a necessary reproductive choice for couples with ethical, religious, or financial concerns associated with the IVF process. The purpose of this review is to clarify the evaluation for and contemporary role of reconstructive surgical techniques in the management of infertility secondary to tubal disease.

For most forms of tubal surgery, a limited preoperative evaluation is necessary. Diagnostic tests include a semen analysis and documentation of ovulation (using basal body temperature records, urine luteinizing hormone [LH] predictor kits, or luteal serum progesterone assays). In women older than age 35 years, basal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) testing is recommended to identify those who may have a decreased ovarian reserve that would make them poor candidates for surgery. Hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy can be used to define the location, extent, and degree of tubal damage. A discussion of the use of these tools in the selection of candidates for tubal reconstructive procedures follows.

The United States National Survey of Family Growth estimates that approximately 1 million women undergo elective tubal sterilization procedures annually, and that 1% of these women will later request its reversal. In a prospective study that surveyed women after tubal ligation, up to 7% regretted the decision. Forty-percent of these women were between the ages of 25 and 29 years.⁴ Given these findings, it is likely that many couples will seek a surgical specialist for consultation. In couples who desire future fertility, tubal reanastomosis and IVF are both legitimate options that offer favorable outcomes.

A limited preoperative evaluation is necessary before considering tubal reanastomosis. Review of operative notes and pathology reports can determine the type and extent of the ligation procedure performed. Hysterosalpingography may be necessary in selected cases to assess the length of proximal oviduct and confirm the type of sterilization procedure performed. Extensive cautery or removal of large segments of the tube may predict a poor postoperative prognosis.

The use of preoperative laparoscopy adds an additional element of cost and risk and is not necessary in most cases. An algorithm proposed by Opsahl defines patients requiring diagnostic laparoscopy before laparotomy and tubal ligation reversal.⁵ Patients with previous Pomeroy, loop, Hulka clip, Irving, and single-burn cautery tubal ligation techniques were considered good candidates for laparotomy (without previous laparoscopy) when it could be anticipated that the final length of at least one tube would be 3 cm or more. In this series, patients with multiple-burn cautery or ligations by unknown procedures underwent diagnostic laparoscopy before laparotomy. Using this algorithm, only 3.8% of 185 patients who did not have laparoscopy were found to have inoperable tubes at laparotomy, with most cases involving a previous unilateral salpingectomy. These data and our own clinical experience indicate that preoperative laparoscopy is indicated when an operative note is unavailable, or when there is evidence of either extensive tubal resection or pelvic pathology at the time of tubal ligation.

Microsurgical techniques require magnification, meticulous hemostasis, minimal tissue handling, methods to prevent desiccation, minimally reactive suture, and avoidance of peritoneal irritants.⁶ Microsurgery results in superior outcomes for salpingolysis, fimbrioplasty, neosalpingostomy, midsegment anastomosis, tubouterine anastomosis, tubouterine implantation, and tubal reanastomosis when compared with macrosurgery.^7,8 In two small series, microsurgical outcomes using loupe magnification or the operating microscope were similar.^9,10

Success rates after tubal reanastomosis are dependent on multiple factors (Table 1). Using a logistic regression, te Velde and coauthors analyzed 215 surgical procedures and determined that the location of the anastomosis, the number of tubes repaired, and the presence of coexisting fertility factors were key variables that predicted success.¹¹ Other studies indicate that success rates are dependent on maternal age and postoperative tubal length.^12,13 Microsurgical treatment rates are higher with isthmic–isthmic anastomoses after fallope ring or clip application,^14,15 and lower when electrocautery was used for the tubal ligation procedure.¹⁶ In the case of extensive adhesions or insufficient tubal length, it may be possible to treat only one tube. Cumulative pregnancy rates are similar when one or both tubes are repaired (61% versus 56%), although the time until conception is longer after unilateral repair.¹³

Table 1. Efficacy of Tubal Ligation Reversal by Methodology

Laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis is an option for highly skilled surgeons experienced in the technique. Most series describe a steep learning curve with the first 10 to 20 procedures, but the procedure can be performed in less than 3 hours with experience.¹⁷ Laparoscopy in conjunction with robotic surgery is currently an area of active investigation. In a small series, Falcone and colleagues completed 10 robotically assisted laparoscopic tubal reanastomoses with a mean operating room time of 159 minutes, and a 50% pregnancy rate after 12 months.¹⁸

In carefully selected patients, success rates are excellent after surgical reanastomosis. In a large review, pregnancy rates after laparotomy ranged from 45% to 82% and were slightly lower for laparoscopic reversal (25%–53%). The average monthly fecundability rate ranges between 8% and 10%. The ectopic pregnancy rate is 1% to 7%, with higher rates observed when the distal segment consists of only ampulla.^19,20

The use of tubal reanastomosis in women older than age 40 is controversial. While intrauterine pregnancy rates of greater than 40% by laparotomy and as high as 71% by laparoscopy are reported,^17,21 other experienced surgeons report lower rates. Glock published surgical outcomes in 52 cases, reporting a conception rate of 43% and spontaneous abortion rate of 23.8%. The live birth rate of only 14.3 %, with no live births in women older than age 43; Winston reported similar results in women older than age 40.^22,23

Of all surgical treatments for tubal disease, sterilization reversal results in the highest pregnancy and fecundability rates. The procedure is appealing to couples who desire an extended family or who are not comfortable with IVF. The ectopic pregnancy risk and the need for future contraception are recognized disadvantages, as is the necessity of laparotomy in most cases. Based on the collective data, the primary variables for success are location of the anastomosis, postoperative tubal length, and maternal age. In carefully selected cases, microsurgery is an alternative to IVF, particularly in younger women. In older women, the role of microsurgery is less certain but could be considered in patients with a favorable prognosis or those who are reluctant to consider IVF.

Distal tubal injury without occlusion can be treated by fimbriolysis or fimbrioplasty. Fimbriolysis is the separation of attached or phimotic fimbria, whereas fimbrioplasty involves repair of partially occluded fimbria. The preoperative investigation is similar to that outlined for tubal reanastomosis, except that the diagnosis and staging of fimbrial disease generally requires laparoscopy because the diagnostic accuracy in defining fimbrial disease using hysterosalpingography is poor.

Surgical outcomes after tubal repair are inversely proportional to the severity of disease. The degree of tubo-ovarian adhesions, tubal thickness, and ciliary and ampullary damage are recognized variables that predict surgical outcome.¹ In the event of minimal disease, term pregnancy rates can surpass 50%,²⁴ but when disease is more severe, pregnancy rates are markedly lower (22%–25%) and the risk of ectopic pregnancy is 12%.

The monthly fecundability rate is estimated to range between 2% and 4%, and both laparoscopy and laparotomy can be used successfully with comparable pregnancy outcomes (Table 2). In younger women, laparoscopic-directed surgical repair is an alternative to IVF. When there is no conception after the first postoperative year, IVF should be considered. In older women, or in women with dense intraperitoneal adhesions and associated tubal disease, IVF is a more likely successful and, therefore better, option.

Table 2. Efficacy of Fimbrioplasty and Lysis of Adhesions in Selected Large Series

Salpingostomy is the repair of complete distal tubal occlusion. The distinction is important because electron microscopic studies have demonstrated more significant mucosal damage in tubes that are completely occluded, as compared with damaged but still patent tubes.⁶ The diagnosis is generally made by hysterosalpingography, but laparoscopy is necessary to define and stage the extent of tubal damage. Numerous staging paradigms designed to predict operative success have been devised.^25,26,27 Whereas nearly all staging systems are based on post hoc analyses and lack validation, they are nonetheless helpful for characterizing the extent of tubal disease and for selection of surgical candidates. In cases of mild disease that are characterized by hydrosalpinges having a diameter less than 15 mm with few associated adhesions and recognizable fimbriae, pregnancy rates approach 80%. In contrast, severe disease, characterized by larger hydrosalpinges exceeding 30 mm in diameter with dense associated adhesions and no visible fimbriae, cumulative pregnancy rates are poor (10%–15%). The extent of adhesions, macroscopic appearance of the endosalpingeal mucosa, and tubal wall thickness also correlate with operative success.^28,29,30

Overall pregnancy rates and ectopic pregnancy risks after laparotomy vary widely, ranging from 13% to 37% and from 2% to 22%, respectively (Table 3). Differences in operative skill, techniques, and the degree of preexisting pelvic pathology all contribute to the differing reports of outcomes. As a rule, pregnancy rates correlate with the degree of tubal damage. For mild distal tubal disease (25% of total cases), live birth rates range from 39% to 59%, and risk for ectopic pregnancy varies between 4% and 10%.^28,31 Pregnancy rates approach 15% at 1 year, with most conceptions occurring within the first 2 postoperative years. In contrast, the outcome for severe disease (more than 30% of cases) is uniformly poor, with pregnancy rates less than 15%. Moreover, ectopic pregnancy rates increase with the severity of tubal damage. Risk for ectopic pregnancy increases with the degree of ampullary dilatation, ranging from 5%, with diameters between 15 and 25 mm, to 12%, when ampullary dilatation exceeds 25 mm.²⁹ Although initial attempts at laparoscopic neosalpingostomy were not very effective,³² experienced surgeons now report pregnancy rates that compare favorably with those achieved by laparotomy.

Table 3. Efficacy of Salpingostomy, Selected Large Series

Tubal patency rates after neosalpingostomy are substantially higher than pregnancy rates.1,33 In a small series, Daniell reported a 98% tubal patency rate after neosalpingostomy using C0₂ laser at laparotomy, but fewer than 20% achieved an intrauterine pregnancy and 2% had an ectopic pregnancy.³⁴ These and other data indicate that even though patency can most often be restored, severely damaged tubes may still not function because tubal ciliary regeneration is slow and often fails altogether.

Limited disease can be treated with neosalpingostomy in younger women, but IVF should be considered after the first postoperative year. In older women, IVF is most often the best option, particularly when one considers the low monthly fecundability (1%–2%) observed after distal tubal surgery. The role of surgery for moderate or severe disease is less clear. Although more severe disease can be diagnosed and treated at laparoscopy, IVF should be considered the preferred therapy because of the low probability of surgical success and the high risk of ectopic pregnancy or tubal reocclusion.³⁵

For women with severe distal tubal disease, the presence of large hydrosalpinges may adversely impact IVF success. In an early retrospective study of 118 patients with hydrosalpinges, pregnancy rates were lower and miscarriage rates higher than those of controls with tubal disease but no hydrosalpinges.³⁶ A variety of additional studies have since confirmed these findings, and a recent meta-analysis that included 5592 patients (1004 with hydrosalpinx and 4588 with tubal infertility without hydrosalpinx) found lower pregnancy, implantation, and live birth rates (odds ratio [OR]: .64; confidence interval [CI]: .56, .74) and a higher incidence of early pregnancy loss in women with hydrosalpinges.³⁷

Several pathophysiologic models have been suggested to explain the lower pregnancy rates achieved with IVF in women with a hydrosalpinges.³⁷ The first model suggests that fluid from the hydrosalpinx may flow toward the uterine cavity and thereby hinder implantation by mechanically washing the uterine cavity.³⁸ A second hypothesizes that hydrosalpingeal fluid may contain cellular or infectious debris, lymphocytes, cytokines, prostaglandins, leukotrienes, and catecholamines, any or all of which may have adverse inflammatory, infectious, or immunological effects.³⁷ Several experiments in animals indicate that fluid from human hydrosalpinges retards the development of mouse embryos, suggesting that such fluid is embryotoxic.^37,39,40,41 A third mechanism envisions that hydrosalpingeal fluid may lower levels of endometrial cell surface proteins (integrins) necessary for implantation, normal expression of which is restored after salpingectomy.^37,42 Finally, there is the possibility that hydrosalpinges may in some way have direct adverse effects on oocytes early in follicular recruitment.^39,43

Collectively, the available evidence argues strongly that hydrosalpinges decrease pregnancy, implantation, and live birth rates and increases risk for early pregnancy loss in women after IVF.³⁷ Although there have been no randomized controlled trials to test the assertion directly, salpingectomy is generally considered preferable to neosalpingostomy before IVF.⁴³

The intramural portion of the tube that traverses the uterine wall measures 1.5 to 2.5 cm in length and has a luminal diameter between .4 and 1 mm. In hysterectomy specimens, the course of this segment is tortuous in 69%, straight in 23%, and curved in 8%.⁴⁴ Proximal tubal occlusion represents approximately one-third of all cases of tubal occlusion diagnosed by hysterosalpingography,¹ but false-positive results are common, occurring in 16% to 40% of imaging studies.⁴⁵ Although repeat imaging decreases the false-positive rate, laparoscopy is usually necessary to establish an accurate diagnosis and is useful for treating any coexisting tubo-ovarian disease that may be identified in up to 20% of cases.⁴⁶

Proximal tubal obstruction results from many causes, including infection, endometriosis, and inflammation.⁴⁷ In a histologic review, obliterative fibrosis (38.1%) was the most common diagnosis, followed by salpingitis isthmica nodosa (SIN) (23.8%), endometriosis (14.3%), and chronic inflammation (21.4%).^27,48 Obliterative fibrosis occurs when dense, collagenous connective tissue obstructs the proximal tubal lumen as a consequence of infection or a foreign body.¹ In contrast, SIN is characterized by muscular hyperplasia and hypertrophy surrounding pseudoglands lined with tubal epithelium.¹ Evidence suggests that SIN is a progressive disease that frequently results in complete tubal occlusion.⁴⁹ The etiology of SIN remains controversial. Infectious, inflammatory, mechanical, hormonal, and congenital causes have been suggested.⁴⁹ Occasionally, intrauterine or intratubal polyps may occlude the oviduct. Although pregnancy rates are no lower in patients with polyps than in those with unexplained infertility,⁵⁰ their removal has been advocated by some.¹

Microsurgical resection and reanastomosis is a proven treatment for proximal tubal obstruction, with pregnancy rates ranging from 54% to 58% after the procedure.^27,47,51 Macrosurgical and implantation techniques result in inferior pregnancy rates and should no longer be used. Honoré recently summarized the world's surgical literature, reporting a 58.9% total pregnancy rate, 47.4% ongoing pregnancy rate, and 7.4% ectopic pregnancy rate.⁴⁹ Monthly fecundability ranges between 5% and 6%, but outcomes depend on the etiology of the obstruction. Better pregnancy rates follow treatment of SIN and range between 44% and 58%. However, the prognosis is poor when occlusion results from endometriosis or chronic inflammation, because reocclusion rates as high as 63% have been observed.^1,45

Proximal tubal cannulation using hysteroscopic- or fluoroscopic-directed methods is a proven alternative to abdominal surgery. Pregnancy rates with fluoroscopic tubal recanalization range from 48% to 85%, with reocclusion rates of 28%.⁵² In the largest review of fluoroscopically guided proximal tubal cannulations, including 11 studies and 253 patients, at least one fallopian tube was successfully cannulated in 79% of treated women, and risk of tubal perforation (5%) was low.⁴⁵ Postprocedure follow-up after 1 to 26 months yielded a 34% pregnancy rate, comparable with that achieved with tubocornual reanastomosis. The average fluoroscopy time was 7.5 minutes, yielding 1.2 rads of radiation. Others have reported lower radiation doses to the ovary (0.85 ± 0.56 rads) that are comparable with those associated with barium enema.⁵³ In a review of five studies involving a total of 25 patients treated by hysteroscopic-directed tubal cannulation, at least one tube was successfully cannulated in 92% of treated women. Among these, 24% subsequently achieved an intrauterine pregnancy and 12% had an ectopic pregnancy. Perforation occurred in 11% of cases but required no additional or specific treatment.

Proximal tubal cannulation may not be quite as effective as tubocornual anastomosis, but it is certainly a less morbid procedure. One proposed treatment algorithm⁵² suggests laparoscopy to exclude endometriosis, adhesions, and distal tubal disease, followed by hysteroscopic-directed tubal cannulation when findings of proximal tubal occlusion are confirmed. When laparoscopy has been performed previously, fluoroscopic cannulation is an attractive choice for treatment. Tubocornual anastomosis or IVF generally may be reserved for those in whom surgical treatment has proven unsuccessful.

Bipolar tubal disease involves coexistent proximal and distal tubal obstruction. In general, success rates achieved with surgical repair of ipsilateral proximal and distal occlusion are poor. In one reported series involving 31 patients, the conception rate at 2.5 years was only 12% and there were no live births.⁵⁴ Others⁶ have reported results that are only modestly better (28% term pregnancy, 3% ectopic pregnancy). In a multicenter trial of transcervical balloon tuboplasty for proximal tubal occlusion, pregnancy rates for women with both distal and proximal disease were significantly lower than for those with only proximal tubal disease (49% versus 12%).⁵⁵ In a study comparing tubal microsurgery and IVF, women with thick-walled hydrosalpinges or combined proximal and distal tubal disease achieved better results with IVF.⁵⁶ In sum, the available data indicate that IVF is a better option than microsurgical repair for women with bipolar tubal occlusive disease.

Advances in assisted reproductive technology now provide a very effective means for treatment of tubal disease, to an extent that tubal reconstructive surgery is in an era of decline. Nonetheless, tubal surgery remains as a highly effective treatment for women seeking pregnancy after a previous tubal sterilization and represents a legitimate alternative to IVF for those with mild distal tubal disease, particularly when they are young, and women with proximal tubal occlusion (Table 4). Tubal surgery should also be viewed as an effective adjuvant to IVF for women with hydrosalpinges.

Table 4. Efficacy of Treatments for Proximal Tubal Disease

1. McComb PF, Fleige-Zahradka BG: The fallopian tube: Pathophysiology. In: Keye WR Jr, Chang JR, Rebar RW et al, (eds): Infertility, Evaluation and Treatment. 444–473, Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1995

2. Land JA: Tubal microsurgery. II. Experimental use Gynecol Obstet Invest 23:145, 1987

3. 1999 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates. National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health, December 2001, http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/art.htm

4. Kjer J: Regret of laparoscopic sterilization. Eur J Obstet Gyn R B 35:205, 1990

5. Opsahl MS, Klein TA: The role of laparoscopy in the evaluation of candidates for sterilization reversal. Fertil Steril 48:546, 1987

6. Winston RM: Microsurgery of the fallopian tube: From fantasy to reality. Fertil Steril 34:521, 1980

7. Fayez JA, Suliman SO: Infertility surgery of the oviduct: Comparison between macrosurgery and microsurgery. Fertil Steril 37:73, 1982

8. Siegler AM, Hulka J, Peretz A: Reversibility of female sterilization. Fertil Steril 43:499, 1985

9. Hulka J, Halme J: Sterilization reversal: results of 101 attempts. Am J Obstet Gynecol 159:767, 1988

10. Rock JA, Berquist CA, Kimball AW et al: Comparison of the operating microscope and loupe for microsurgical tubal anastomosis: A randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 41:229, 1984

11. te Velde ER, Boer ME, Looman CWN et al: Factors influencing success or failure after reversal of sterilization: A multivariate approach. Fertil Steril 54:270, 1990

12. Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Morice P et al: Sterilization reversal: Fertility results. Hum Reprod 10:1145, 1995

13. Rouzi AA, Mackinnon M, McComb PF: Predictors of success of reversal of sterilization. Fertil Steril 64:29, 1995

14. Boeckx W, Gordts S, Buysse K et al: Reversibility after female sterilization. Br Obstet Gynaecol 93:839, 1986

15. Henderson S: 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 149:57, 1984

16. Rock JA, Chang YS, Limpaphayom K et al: Microsurgical tubal anastomosis: A controlled trial in four Asian centers. Microsurgery 5:95, 1984

17. Yoon TK, Sung HR, Kang HG et al: Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: Fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril 72:1121, 1999

18. Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Margossian H et al: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: A human pilot study. Fertil Steril 73:1040, 2000

19. Penzias AS, DeCherney AH: Is there ever a role for tubal surgery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:1218-1221, 1996

20. Van Voorhis BJ: Comparison of tubal ligation reversal procedures. Clin Obstet Gynecol 43:641, 2000

21. Trimbos-Kemper TCM: Reversal of sterilization in women over 40 years of age: A multicenter survey in The Netherlands. Fertil Steril 53:575, 1990

22. Glock JL, Kim AH, Hulka JF et al: Reproductive outcome after tubal reversal in women 40 years of age or older. Fertil Steril 65:863, 1996

23. Winston RM: Tubal surgery or in vitro fertilization (IVF)? J Assist Reprod Genet 9:309, 1992

24. Donnez J, Casanas-Roux F: Prognostic factors of fimbrial microsurgery. Fertil Steril 46:200, 1986

25. Rock JA, Katayama KP, Martin EJ et al: Factors influencing the success of salpingostomy techniques for distal fimbrial obstruction. Obstet Gynecol 52:591, 1978

26. Schlaff WD, Hassiakos DK, Damewood MD et al: Neosalpingostomy for distal tubal obstruction: Prognostic factors and impact of surgical technique. Fertil Steril 54:984, 1990

27. Diamond MP, Copperman AB: Treatment of disorders of the fallopian tube. In: Keye WR Jr, Daniell JF, Herbert CM (eds): Laparoscopic Salpingostomy Utilizing the CO2 Laser.

28. Boer-Meisel ME, te Velde ER, Habbema JDF et al: Predicting the pregnancy outcome in patients treated for hydrosalpinx: A prospective study. Fertil Steril 45:23, 1986

29. Donnez J, Casanas-Roux F: Microsurgery of distal tubal lesions. Analysis of 270 operated cases J Gynecol Obst Bio R 15:339, 1986

30. Canis M, Mage G, Pouly JL et al: Laparoscopic distal tuboplasty: Report of 87 cases and a 4-year experience. Fertil Steril 56:616, 1991

31. Winston RML, Margara RA: Microsurgical salpingostomy is not an obsolete procedure. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 98:637, 1991

32. Fayez JA: An assessment of the role of operative laparoscopy in tuboplasty. Fertil Steril 39:476, 1983

33. Kitchin JD 3rd, Nunley WC Jr, Bateman BG: Surgical management of distal tubal occlusion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 155:524, 1986

34. Daniell JF, Diamond MP, McLaughlin DS et al: Clinical results of terminal salpingostomy with the use of the CO2 laser: report of the Intraabdominal Laser Study Group. Fertil Steril 45:175, 1986

35. Marana R, Quagliarello J: Distal tubal occlusion: microsurgery versus in vitro fertilization–a review. Int J Fertil 33:107, 1988

36. Sims J, Jones D et al: Effect of hydrosalpinx on outcome in in-vitro fertilization (IVF). 49th Annual Meeting of the American Fertility Society, Montreal, Quebec, CANADA, Oct. 4, 1993

37. 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 14:1243, 1999

38. Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA, Serour GI et al: Fluid accumulation of the uterine cavity before embryo transfer: a possible hindrance for implantation. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 8:157, 1991

39. Nackley AC, Muasher SJ: The significance of hydrosalpinx in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 69:373, 1998

40. Mukherjee T, Copperman AB, McCaffrey C et al: Hydrosalpinx fluid has embryotoxic effects on murine embryogenesis: a case for prophylactic salpingectomy. Fertil Steril 66:851, 1996

41. Barmat LI, Nasti K, Yang X et al: Are cytokines and growth factors responsible for the detrimental effects of hydrosalpingeal fluid on pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? Fertil Steril 72:1110, 1999

42. Meyer WR, Castelbaum AJ, Somkuti S et al: Hydrosalpinges adversely affect markers of endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod 12:1393, 1997

43. Freeman F, Whitworth C et al: Hydrosalpinx reduces in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer rates and in vitro blastocyst development. 52nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Boston, MA, November 2–7, 1996.

44. Sweeney W: The interstitial portion of the uterine tube-its gross anatomy, course, and length. Obstet Gynecol 19:3, 1962

45. Flood JT, Grow DR: Transcervical tubal cannulation: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 48:768, 1993

46. Confino E, Tur-Kaspa I, DeCherney A et al: Transcervical balloon tuboplasty. A multicenter study JAMA 264:2079, 1990

47. Marana R, Quagliarello J: Proximal tubal occlusion: microsurgery versus IVF–a review. Int J Fertil 33:338, 1988

48. Fortier KJ, Haney AF: The pathologic spectrum of uterotubal junction obstruction. Obstet Gynecol 65:93, 1985

49. Honoré GM, Holden AEC, Schenken RS: Pathophysiology and management of proximal tubal blockage. Fertil Steril 71:785, 1999

50. Glazener CM, Loveden LM, Richardson SJ et al: Tubo-cornual polyps: their relevance in subfertility. Hum Reprod 2:59, 1987

51. Patton PE, Williams TJ, Coulam CB: Microsurgical reconstruction of the proximal oviduct. Fertil Steril 47:35, 1987

52. Valle RF: Tubal cannulation. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 22:519, 1995

53. Thurmond AS: Selective salpingography and fallopian tube recanalization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 156:33, 1991

54. Patton PE, Williams TJ, Coulam CB: Results of microsurgical reconstruction in patients with combined proximal and distal tubal occlusion: Double obstruction. Fertil Steril 48:670, 1987

55. Gleicher N, Confino E, Corfman R et al: The multicentre transcervical balloon tuboplasty study: conclusions and comparison to alternative technologies. Hum Reprod 8:1264, 1993

56. Wiedemann R, Hepp H: Selection of patients for IVF therapy or alternative therapy methods. Hum Reprod 4:8S:23, 1989

57. Kim SH, Shin CJ, Kim JG et al: Microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization: A report on 1,118 cases. Fertil Steril 68:865, 1997

58. Kim J-D, Kim K-S, Doo J-K, Rhyeu C-H: A report on 387 cases of microsurgical tubal reversals. Fertil Steril 68:875, 1997

59. DeCherney AH, Mezer HC, Naftolin F: Analysis of failure of microsurgical anastomosis after mid-segment, non-coagulation tubal ligation. Fertil Steril 39:618, 1983

60. Gomel V: Microsurgical reversal of female sterilization: A reappraisal. Fertil Steril 33:587, 1980

61. Owen E: Reversal of female sterilization. Review of 252 microsurgical salpingosalpingostomies Med J Australia 141:276, 1984

62. Cha SH, Lee MH, Kim JH et al: Fertility outcome after tubal anastomosis by laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Am Assoc Gynecologic Laparoscopists 8:348, 2001

63. Barjot PJ, Marie G, Von Theobald P: Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and reversal of sterilization. Hum Reprod 14:1222, 1999

64. Dubuisson JB, Chapron C: Single suture laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gyn 10:307, 1998

65. Reich H, McGlynn F, Parente C et al: Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparoscopy 1:16, 1993

66. Bissonnette F, Lapensée L, Bouzayen R: Outpatient laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and subsequent fertility. Fertil Steril 72:549, 1999

67. Stadtmauer L, Sauer MV: Reversal of tubal sterilization using laparoscopically placed titanium staples: Preliminary experience. Hum Reprod 12:647, 1997

68. Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Houng PT et al: Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: A feasibility study. Fertil Steril 74:1020, 2000

69. O'Brien JR, Arronet GH, Eduljee SY: Operative treatment of Fallopian tube pathology in human fertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol 103:520, 1969

70. Diamond E: Lysis of postoperative pelvic adhesions in infertility. Fertil Steril 31:287, 1979

71. Wallach EE, Manara LR, Eisenberg E: Experience with 143 cases of tubal surgery. Fertil Steril 39:609, 1983

72. Grant A: Infertility surgery of the oviduct. Fertil Steril 22:496, 1971

73. Dubuisson JB, Bouquet de Jolinière J, Aubriot FX et al: Terminal tuboplasties by laparoscopy: 65 consecutive cases. Fertil Steril 54:401, 1990

74. Gomel V: Salpingo-ovariolysis by laparoscopy in infertility. Fertil Steril 40:607, 1983

75. Bruhat MA, Mage G, Manhes H et al: Laparoscopy procedures to promote fertility ovariolysis and salpingolysis. Results of 93 selected cases Acta Europaea Fertilitatis 14:113, 1983

76. Verhoeven HC, Berry H, Frantzen C et al: Surgical treatment for distal tubal occlusion. A review of 167 cases J Reprod Med 28:293, 1983

77. Laatikainen TJ, Tenhunen AK, Venesmaa PK et al: Factors influencing the success of microsurgery for distal tubal occlusion. Arch Gynecol Obstet 243:101, 1988

78. Frantzen C, Schlosser HW: Microsurgery and postinfectious tubal infertility. Fertil Steril 38:397, 1982

79. Gomel V: Microsurgical techniques in infertility. In: Gomel V (guest ed) (ed): Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 971-1338, Vol 3, No 4:Hagerstown, Harper & Row, 1980

80. Gomel V: Salpingostomy by microsurgery. Fertil Steril 29:380, 1978

81. Dlugi AM, Reddy S, Saleh WA et al: Pregnancy rates after operative endoscopic treatment of total (neosalpingostomy) or near total (salpingostomy) distal tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril 62:913, 1994

82. Daniell JF, Herbert CM: Laparoscopic salpingostomy utilizing the CO2 laser. Fertil Steril 41:558, 1984

83. Mettler L, Irani S, Kapamadzija A et al: Pelviscopic tubal surgery: the acceptable vogue. Hum Reprod 5:971, 1990

84. Taylor RC, Berkowitz J, McComb PF: Role of laparoscopic salpingostomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinx. Fertil Steril 75:594, 2001

85. Diamond E: A comparison of gross and microsurgical techniques for repair of cornual occlusion in infertility: A retrospective study, 1968–1978. Fertil Steril 32:370, 1979

86. McComb P, Gomel V: Cornual occlusion and its microsurgical reconstruction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 23:1229, 1980

87. Avy G, Diamond MP, DeCherney AH: Pregnancy following tubocornual anastomosis. Fertil Steril 46:21, 1986

88. Gillett WR, Herbison GP: Tubocornual anastomosis: Surgical considerations and coexistent infertility factors in determining the prognosis. Fertil Steril 51:241, 1989

89. Jacobs LA, Thie J, Patton PE, Williams TJ: Primary microsurgery for postinflammatory tubal infertility. Fertil Steril 50:855, 1988

90. Donnez J and Casanas-Roux F: Histology: A prognostic factor in proximal tubal occlusion. Eur J Obstet Gyn R B 29:33, 1988

91. McComb P: Microsurgical tubocornual anastomosis for occlusive cornual disease: Reproducible results without the need for tubouterine implantation. Fertil Steril 46:571, 1986

92. Thurmond AS, Rosch J: Nonsurgical fallopian tube recanalization for treatment of infertility. Radiology 174:371, 1990

93. Kumpe DA, Zwerdlinger SC, Rothbarth LJ et al: Proximal fallopian tube occlusion: Diagnosis and treatment with transcervical fallopian tube catheterization. Radiology 177:183, 1990

94. Thompson KA, Kiltz RJ, Koci T et al: Transcervical fallopian tube catheterization and recanalization for proximal tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril 61:243, 1994

95. Deaton JL, Gibson M, Riddick DH et al: Diagnosis and treatment of cornual obstruction using a flexible tip guidewire. Fertil Steril 53:232, 1990

96. Novy MJ, Thurmond AS, Patton P et al: Diagnosis of cornual obstruction by transcervical fallopian tube cannulation. Fertil Steril 50:434, 1988

97. Huang Y, Ju-Fang S et al: Catheterisme tubaire et hydrotubation dans le traitement de certaines sterilites tubaires. Contracep Fertil Sex 16:211, 1988 [French]