Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite
Year 2023, , 14 - 17, 20.01.2023
https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1179603

Abstract

References

  • Nations U. World Contraceptive Use 2022 and Estimates and Projections of Family Planning Indicators 2022. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division P.
  • Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 1198-202.
  • Elci G, Elci E, Sayan S, Hanligil E. Is there any difference between pregnancy results after tubal reanastamosis performed laparotomically, laparoscopically, and robotically? Asian J Endosc Surg 2022; 15: 261-9.
  • Gomel V, McComb PF. Microsurgery for tubal infertility. J Reprod Med 2006; 51: 177-84.
  • van Seeters JAH, Chua SJ, Mol BWJ, Koks CAM. Tubal anastomosis after previous sterilization: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2017; 23: 358-70.
  • Hirshfeld-Cytron J, Winter J. Laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis versus in vitro fertilization: cost-based decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 56.e1-6.
  • Messinger LB, Alford CE, Csokmay JM, Henne MB, Mumford SL, Segars JH, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of in vitro fertilization and tubal anastomosis for women after tubal ligation. Fertil Steril 2015; 104: 32-8.
  • van de Water M, Bosteels J, De Sutter P, Weyers S. Laparoscopic non-microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: A retrospective cohort study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2015; 20: 193-200.
  • Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2660-4.
  • Godin PA, Syrios K, Rege G, Demir S, Charitidou E, Wery O. Laparoscopic reversal of tubal sterilization; a retrospective study over 135 cases. Front Surg 2018; 5: 79.

Can tubal reversal be an alternative to IVF? Cohort study

Year 2023, , 14 - 17, 20.01.2023
https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1179603

Abstract

Introduction: Tubal reversal is the surgery done after tubal sterilization. Mostly, sterilization at a younger age or a new partner makes women request tubal reanastomosis. In the literature, pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy rates after tubal reversal is about 65% and 5.6%, respectively.
Material and Method: In our study, data from the files of patients who had tubal reversal operations between 2015-2021 years in Sanliurfa Training and Research Hospital were collected retrospectively. Demographic features, surgical and pregnancy outcome data of patients were collected. This study investigated the pregnancy rates and associated factors with pregnancy rates after tubal reanastomosis operations.
Results: In our study, 112 patients with tubal reversal operations were recorded. 25 out of 112 patients had spontaneous pregnancy after the tubal reversal operation. Age at a tubal reversal was a significantly important factor between a pregnant and non-pregnant group. According to age, below 40 years seems an ideal age factor for pregnancy. In our study, pregnancy rates were lower than in the literature.
Conclusion: Tubal reversal operation can be an alternative to IVF below 40 years of age.

References

  • Nations U. World Contraceptive Use 2022 and Estimates and Projections of Family Planning Indicators 2022. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division P.
  • Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 1198-202.
  • Elci G, Elci E, Sayan S, Hanligil E. Is there any difference between pregnancy results after tubal reanastamosis performed laparotomically, laparoscopically, and robotically? Asian J Endosc Surg 2022; 15: 261-9.
  • Gomel V, McComb PF. Microsurgery for tubal infertility. J Reprod Med 2006; 51: 177-84.
  • van Seeters JAH, Chua SJ, Mol BWJ, Koks CAM. Tubal anastomosis after previous sterilization: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2017; 23: 358-70.
  • Hirshfeld-Cytron J, Winter J. Laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis versus in vitro fertilization: cost-based decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 56.e1-6.
  • Messinger LB, Alford CE, Csokmay JM, Henne MB, Mumford SL, Segars JH, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of in vitro fertilization and tubal anastomosis for women after tubal ligation. Fertil Steril 2015; 104: 32-8.
  • van de Water M, Bosteels J, De Sutter P, Weyers S. Laparoscopic non-microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: A retrospective cohort study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2015; 20: 193-200.
  • Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2660-4.
  • Godin PA, Syrios K, Rege G, Demir S, Charitidou E, Wery O. Laparoscopic reversal of tubal sterilization; a retrospective study over 135 cases. Front Surg 2018; 5: 79.
There are 10 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Health Care Administration
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Alev Esercan 0000-0002-6215-6532

Emre Ekmekci 0000-0003-2494-3073

Publication Date January 20, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023

Cite

AMA Esercan A, Ekmekci E. Can tubal reversal be an alternative to IVF? Cohort study. Anatolian Curr Med J / ACMJ / acmj. January 2023;5(1):14-17. doi:10.38053/acmj.1179603

TR DİZİN ULAKBİM and International Indexes (1b)

Interuniversity Board (UAK) Equivalency:  Article published in Ulakbim TR Index journal [10 POINTS], and Article published in other (excuding 1a, b, c) international indexed journal (1d) [5 POINTS]

Note: Our journal is not WOS indexed and therefore is not classified as Q.

You can download Council of Higher Education (CoHG) [Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu (YÖK)] Criteria) decisions about predatory/questionable journals and the author's clarification text and journal charge policy from your browser. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/journal/3449/file/4924/show

Journal Indexes and Platforms: 

TR Dizin ULAKBİM, Google Scholar, Crossref, Worldcat (OCLC), DRJI, EuroPub, OpenAIRE, Turkiye Citation Index, Turk Medline, ROAD, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, ASOS Index, General Impact Factor, Scilit.


The indexes of the journal's are;

18596


asos-index.png

f9ab67f.png

WorldCat_Logo_H_Color.png

      logo-large-explore.png

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgDnBwx0yUPRKuetgIurtELxYERFv20CPAUcPe4jYrrJiwXzac8rGXlzd57gl8iikb1Tk&usqp=CAU

index_copernicus.jpg


84039476_619085835534619_7808805634291269632_n.jpg





The platforms of the journal's are;

COPE.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbq2FM8NTdXECzlOUCeKQ1dvrISFL-LhxhC7zy1ZQeJk-GGKSx2XkWQvrsHxcfhtfHWxM&usqp=CAUicmje_1_orig.png

cc.logo.large.png

ncbi.png

ORCID_logo.pngimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlwX77nfpy3Bu9mpMBZa0miWT2sRt2zjAPJKg2V69ODTrjZM1nT1BbhWzTVPsTNKJMZzQ&usqp=CAU


images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTaWSousoprPWGwE-qxwxGH2y0ByZ_zdLMN-Oq93MsZpBVFOTfxi9uXV7tdr39qvyE-U0I&usqp=CAU






The
 
indexes/platforms of the journal are;

TR Dizin Ulakbim, Crossref (DOI), Google Scholar, EuroPub, Directory of Research Journal İndexing (DRJI), Worldcat (OCLC), OpenAIRE, ASOS Index, ROAD, Turkiye Citation Index, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, Turk Medline, General Impact Factor, Scilit 


EBSCO, DOAJ, OAJI is under evaluation.

Journal articles are evaluated as "Double-Blind Peer Review"