Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Fri, Dec 2, 2022
[Archive]
Volume 7, Issue 5 (September - October 2022)
J Obstet Gynecol Cancer Res 2022, 7(5): 437-444 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
S. Dawood A, M. Atallah W, M. Assar T. Laparoscopic Tubal Adhesiolysis Versus ICSI in Cases of Post-Cesarean Adhesions: Which Is the Best?. J Obstet Gynecol Cancer Res 2022; 7 (5) :437-444
URL: http://jogcr.com/article-1-562-en.html
URL: http://jogcr.com/article-1-562-en.html
1- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt , ayman.dawood@med.tanta.edu.eg
2- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
3- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Benha University, Benha, Egypt
2- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
3- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Benha University, Benha, Egypt
Abstract: (5390 Views)
Background & Objective: Secondary infertility resulting from tubal adhesions following cesarean section are not uncommon. The decision to do adhesiolysis or direct IVF/ICSI is to some extent difficult. This study was conducted to evaluate the benefits/risks of either adhesiolysis or direct IVF/ICSI for patients with secondary infertility due to post-cesarean tubal adhesions.
Materials & Methods: Three hundred infertile women with post-cesarean adhesion were recruited and divided into 2 groups either laparoscopic adhesiolysis or ICSI procedure.
Results: Demographic data of enrolled patients in both groups were comparable. Regarding types of adhesions, mild adhesions were found in (47.65%) cases, moderate adhesions in (24.83%) cases and severe adhesions in (27.52%) cases. Pregnancy rates were found to be higher in cases with mild adhesions (62.67%) when compared to cases with moderate or severe adhesions (28.00%) and (9.33%) respectively. The overall pregnancy rate in group 1 was 67 (44.97%), while it was 83 (55.70%) in group 2. The pregnancy rate was higher in group 2 but didn't reach statistical significance. The cost of the procedure was significantly higher in group 2 but with significantly lower complication rates.
Conclusion: Although assisted reproduction gives the patient higher pregnancy rates with less possibility of complications, it should not be considered the first-choice treatment for patients with post-cesarean adhesions, especially in mild and moderate cases.
Systematic Review: Original Research |
Subject:
Reproductive Medicine
Received: 2021/12/3 | Accepted: 2022/02/3 | Published: 2022/07/7
Received: 2021/12/3 | Accepted: 2022/02/3 | Published: 2022/07/7
References
1. Herzberger EH, Alon H, Hershko-Klement A, Ganor-Paz Y, Fejgin MD, Biron-Shental T. Adhesions at repeat cesarean delivery: is there a personal impact? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(4):813-8. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-015-3718-x] [PMID]
2. Hesselman S, Högberg U, Råssjö EB, Schytt E, Löfgren M, Jonsson M. Abdominal adhesions in gynaecologic surgery after caesarean section: a longitudinal population‐based register study. Int j obstet gynaecol. 2018;125(5):597-603. [DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.14708] [PMID]
3. Morales KJ, Gordon MC, Bates Jr GW. Postcesarean delivery adhesions associated with delayed delivery of infant. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(5):461-e1. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2006.12.017] [PMID]
4. Al-Asmari N, Tulandi T. The relevance of post-cesarean adhesions. Surg Technol Int. 2012;22:177-81.
5. Moris D, Chakedis J, Rahnemai-Azar AA, Wilson A, Hennessy MM, Athanasiou A, et al. Postoperative abdominal adhesions: clinical significance and advances in prevention and management. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(10):1713-22. [DOI:10.1007/s11605-017-3488-9] [PMID]
6. Stark M, Hoyme UB, Stubert B, Kieback D, Di Renzo GC. Post-cesarean adhesions-are they a unique entity? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008;21(8):513-6. [DOI:10.1080/14767050802040823] [PMID]
7. Evers EC, McDermott KC, Blomquist JL, Handa VL. Mode of delivery and subsequent fertility. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(11):2569-74. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deu197] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Kjerulff KH, Zhu J, Weisman CS, Ananth CV. First birth Caesarean section and subsequent fertility: a population-based study in the USA, 2000-2008. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(12):3349-57. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/det343] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Bhattacharya S, Porter M, Harrild K, Naji A, Mollison J, Van Teijlingen E, et al. Absence of conception after caesarean section: voluntary or involuntary? Int j obstet gynaecol. 2006;113(3):268-75. [DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00853.x] [PMID]
10. Gurol-Urganci I, Bou-Antoun S, Lim CP, Cromwell DA, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, et al. Impact of Caesarean section on subsequent fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(7):1943-52. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/det130] [PMID]
11. Awonuga AO, Fletcher NM, Saed GM, Diamond MP. Postoperative adhesion development following cesarean and open intra-abdominal gynecological operations: a review. Reprod Sci. 2011;18(12):1166-85. [DOI:10.1177/1933719111414206] [PMID] [PMCID]
12. Abd Elmonem H, Alkafrawy M. The relationship between CS and sub fertility. AAMJ. 2011;9(3):2.
13. Algergawy A, Alhalwagy A, Shehata A, Salem H, Abd Alnaby A. Unexplained infertility: laparoscopy first or art directly. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):e42. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.132]
14. Joergensen SL, Settnes A. Post-Cesarean Adhesion Syndrome. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;35(5):314-7. [DOI:10.1089/gyn.2018.0102]
15. Hinterleitner L, Kiss H, Ott J. The impact of Cesarean section on female fertility: a narrative review. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2021;48(4):781-6. [DOI:10.31083/j.ceog4804125]
16. Fatum M. Should diagnostic laparoscopy by performed after normal hysterosalpingography in treating infertility suspected to be of unknown origin? Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1-3. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.8.2217]
17. Dawood AS, Elgergawy AE. Incidence and sites of pelvic adhesions in women with post-caesarean infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(8):1158-63. [DOI:10.1080/01443615.2018.1460583] [PMID]
18. Elgergawy AE, Elhalwagy AE, Salem HA, Dawood AS. Outcome of Laparoscopic Adhesiolysis in Infertile Patients with Pelvic Adhesions Following Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(5):101969. [DOI:10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101969] [PMID]
19. Seyam E, Ibrahim EM, Youseff AM, Khalifa EM, Hefzy E. Laparoscopic management of adhesions developed after peritoneal nonclosure in primary cesarean section delivery. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2018;2018. [DOI:10.1155/2018/6901764] [PMID] [PMCID]
20. Ghorab FAE-D, Salem HA-A, Morsy AT, Dawood AS. Pregnancy Rates after Laproscopic Adhesiolysis of Post Ceasarean Adhesions. Egypt J Hosp Med. 2019;76(4):3992-6. [DOI:10.21608/ejhm.2019.41917]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer Research by Farname Inc is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Based on a work at http://jogcr.com/. |
Copyright Policy
Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer Research by Farname Inc is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://jogcr.com/.
