ENDOSCOPIC TUBAL CANALIZATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO IVF: AN OUTCOME ANALYSIS

Authors

  • A RAHIM Department of Gynecologist Farooq Hospital DHA Avenue Mall Lahore, Pakistan
  • M RASHEED Department of Gynecologist District Headquarters Hospital Muzaffargarh, Pakistan
  • T RASHEED Department of Gynecologist Mukhtiar A Sheikh Hospital Multan, Pakistan
  • A SAJJID Department of Gynecologist Mukhtiar A Sheikh Hospital Multan, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.1437

Keywords:

Tubal infertility, endoscopic tubal canalization, proximal tubal occlusion, IVF alternative, pregnancy outcomes, Pakistan

Abstract

Tubal infertility is a significant contributor to subfertility worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries like Pakistan, where limited access to advanced reproductive technologies poses significant challenges. Endoscopic tubal canalization offers a minimally invasive and cost-effective alternative to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for managing proximal tubal occlusion. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic tubal canalization as an alternative to IVF, focusing on procedural success rates, pregnancy outcomes, and associated complications in women with proximal tubal infertility. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on 72 women of reproductive age diagnosed with proximal tubal occlusion using hysterosalpingography (HSG) or laparoscopy. Patients underwent endoscopic tubal canalization, and outcomes were assessed in terms of procedural success (unilateral or bilateral tubal patency), pregnancy rates (spontaneous and intrauterine insemination), and complications. Statistical analysis was performed to compare results with existing literature and evaluate the safety profile. Results: The overall success rate of tubal canalization was 83.3% (60/72), with unilateral patency achieved in 29.1% (21/72) and bilateral patency in 54.1% (39/72). The failure rate was 16.6% (12/72). The procedure was associated with a low complication rate, with only 4% (3/72) of patients experiencing tubal perforation. Pregnancy success was observed in 29.1% (21/72) of patients, with 52.3% (11/21) achieving spontaneous conception and 47.6% (10/21) conceiving via intrauterine insemination. Among pregnancies, 90.4% were intrauterine, while 9.5% were ectopic. The findings align with international studies, demonstrating comparable success rates and safety profiles. Conclusion: Endoscopic tubal canalization is an effective and safe alternative to IVF for managing proximal tubal infertility in resource-limited settings. It provides a cost-effective solution with favorable success rates and minimal complications, particularly for patients with socioeconomic constraints. This study contributes valuable data specific to the Pakistani population and highlights the need for further research to assess long-term outcomes and live birth rates.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ali S, Sophie R, Imam AM, et al. Knowledge, perceptions, and myths regarding infertility among selected adult population in Pakistan: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:760. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-760

Farooq F, Javed S, Ahmad M. Socio-demographic factors associated with infertility in Punjab, Pakistan: a case-control study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2020;70(8):1353-1357. doi:10.5455/JPMA.11725

Sharma S, Bathwal S, Agarwal N, et al. Reproductive outcomes following tubal recanalization in women with proximal tubal occlusion: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2022;37(6):1137-1150. doi:10.1093/humrep/deac059

Nessa A, Begum S, Ahmed T, et al. Epidemiology of tubal factor infertility in South Asia: implications for management. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2021;19(3):209-216. doi:10.18502/ijrm.v19i3.8697

Masood SN, Butt S, Sultana R, et al. Prevalence and determinants of infertility in Pakistan: a hospital-based study. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2020;30(4):376-380. doi:10.29271/jcpsp.2020.04.376

Bashir A, Nawaz A, Ali S. Role of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in diagnosing and managing tubal factor infertility. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(5):1261-1265. doi:10.12669/pjms.35.5.697

Zafar R, Javaid S, Naeem M. The cost-effectiveness of endoscopic procedures for infertility treatment in low-resource settings. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2023;160(2):347-352. doi:10.1002/ijgo.14726

Tanaka Y, Ishii K, Ota H, et al. Outcomes of hysteroscopic and fluoroscopic tubal recanalization: A systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2023;49(3):1254-1263. doi:10.1111/jog.15596

Singh S, Sharma R, Kaul U. Endoscopic management of proximal tubal blockage: An Indian perspective. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2021;154(2):162-167. doi:10.1002/ijgo.13649

Zhou L, Chen J, Zhang X, et al. Comparative analysis of pregnancy outcomes following tubal canalization and IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45(4):681-688. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.06.014

Kim J, Lee J, Park H. Factors influencing pregnancy success following tubal recanalization: A multicenter study. Fertil Steril. 2022;117(5):1015-1022. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.02.025

Sharma S, Bathwal S, Agarwal N, et al. Reproductive outcomes following tubal recanalization in women with proximal tubal occlusion: A systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2022;37(6):1137-1150. doi:10.1093/humrep/deac059

Farooq F, Javed S, Ahmad M. Socio-demographic factors associated with infertility in Punjab, Pakistan: A case-control study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2020;70(8):1353-1357. doi:10.5455/JPMA.11725

Bashir A, Nawaz A, Ali S. Role of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in diagnosing and managing tubal factor infertility. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(5):1261-1265. doi:10.12669/pjms.35.5.697

Nessa A, Begum S, Ahmed T, et al. Epidemiology of tubal factor infertility in South Asia: Implications for management. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2021;19(3):209-216. doi:10.18502/ijrm.v19i3.8697

Downloads

Published

2024-12-30

How to Cite

RAHIM , A., RASHEED , M., RASHEED , T., & SAJJID , A. (2024). ENDOSCOPIC TUBAL CANALIZATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO IVF: AN OUTCOME ANALYSIS. Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal, 2024(1), 1437. https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.1437

Most read articles by the same author(s)