Comparison of the ongoing pregnancy rate of in vitro fertilisation following tubal occlusion by microcoil placement versus laparoscopic tubal ligation for hydrosalpinges

Abstract

To compare the pregnancy outcomes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) following tubal occlusion by microcoil placement versus laparoscopic tubal ligation for hydrosalpinges. This was a single centre retrospective study of 127 infertile women aged <43 years with unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinges on transvaginal ultrasound who underwent either tubal occlusion by the microcoil placement under X-ray control (the microcoil group (n = 60)) or laparoscopic tubal ligation (the ligation group (n = 67)) prior to IVF at the discretion of the attending physicians. In all women, laparoscopy was not considered to be contraindicated due to extensive pelvic adhesions. The pregnancy outcomes of the IVF cycle following the treatment for hydrosalpinges were compared. Both groups had comparable demographic and cycle stimulation characteristics. The positive pregnancy test (43.3% (26/60) vs 64.2% (43/67), p = 0.02, RR = 0.68 (0.48–0.95)), ongoing pregnancy (35.0% (21/60) vs 58.2% (39/67), p = 0.009, RR = 0.60 (0.40–0.89)) and implantation rates (33.3% (34/102) vs 49.5% (56/113), p = 0.016, RR 0.67 (0.48–0.94)) were significantly lower in the microcoil group than those in the ligation group. Both groups had similar miscarriage, multiple pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy rates. A multivariate logistic regression revealed that only the women’s age and the treatment method of hydrosalpinx were significant factors in predicting the ongoing pregnancy. A lower ongoing pregnancy rate of IVF was found in women with hydrosalpinges following tubal occlusion by microcoil placement under X-ray when compared with laparoscopic tubal ligation.

Keywords:

• Microcoil
• hydrosalpinges
• X-ray surveillance
• IVF
• laparoscopic tubal ligation
• ongoing pregnancy

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.