The tubal factor accounts for 25%–35% of female infertility (1). Tubal impairment is caused by pelvic inflammatory disease in 50% of cases (2), and distal tubal occlusion may lead to the formation of hydrosalpinges (3).
Even though IVF and embryo transfer (ET) initially were performed in patients with tubal impairment, it finally became obvious that the presence of hydrosalpinges was associated with a poorer IVF-ET outcome; many retrospective studies reported significantly lower implantation and pregnancy rates in patients with hydrosalpinges when compared with other types of tubal disease (4, 5, 6 and 7), as well as increased rates of spontaneous abortions (5 and 8) and ectopic pregnancies (9).
The theories behind the harmful effect of hydrosalpinges on IVF-ET outcomes include the following: [1] direct toxic effect of the accumulated fluid on the transferred embryos through its leakage in the endometrial cavity (10, 11, 12, 13 and 14), although studies on human embryos have not revealed such a direct embryonic toxicity (15 and 16); [2] inhibition of implantation by alterations in endometrial receptivity (17, 18 and 19) or mechanical washing of the blastocyst (20 and 21); and [3] impairment of embryo development as a result of hydrosalpingeal fluid’s deficiencies in nutrients and energy stores (22, 23 and 24).
The treatment options for hydrosalpinges include drainage, salpingostomy, proximal tubal occlusion, and salpingectomy. Once the deleterious effect of hydrosalpinges on IVF-ET outcomes has been widely accepted, their so-called prophylactic treatment before the application of assisted reproductive technologies has been proposed. After many retrospective studies,
two prospective randomized ones (25 and 26) confirmed the beneficial effect of salpingectomy before IVF, whereas a recent meta-analysis concluded that laparoscopic salpingectomy should be considered for all women with hydrosalpinges due to undergo IVF-ET (27). Nevertheless, salpingectomy involves some certain surgical risks, especially in women with previous abdominal surgery and/or extensive pelvic adhesions, whereas the procedure has been associated with an impairment of the ovarian blood flow as a result of the transection of collateral vessels, which might result in a subsequently reduced efficacy of ovarian stimulation (28).
As a consequence, the evaluation of alternative to salpingectomy techniques for the management of women with hydrosalpinges before their IVF treatment would be interesting. Such an evaluation of the proximal tubal-occlusion technique has been performed only through retrospective studies (29 and 30). The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the impact of the salpingectomy and proximal tubal occlusion on IVF-ET outcomes in a prospective randomized trial.