Technical results of falloposcopy for infertility diagnosis in a large multicentre study.

Despite increasing evidence of its potential clinical value, falloposcopy has not yet found widespread use. In a large prospective international multicentre study we investigated the hypothesis that limited technical reproducibility may be of crucial significance in this regard. From 1994 to 1998, data on 367 patients with 639 tubes were recorded from 18 centres (median number of falloposcopies 22). Falloposcopy was performed using hysteroscopic ostium access, coaxial tubal cannulation and retrograde visualization under laparoscopic control. The procedure was successful in 69.6% of the tubes. Failures occurred in 6.1% during hysteroscopy, in 10.6% during the cannulation step and in 16.4% during visualization. While predominantly intracavitary pathology or thick endometrium were found to interfere with hysteroscopic ostium access, technical insufficiencies resulting in catheter damage or vision disturbing light reflexions were identified to be responsible for most cannulation and visualization failures, confirming the importance of these factors. The number of patients who received a complete falloposcopic evaluation did not exceed 57%. Additionally, 23.7% of patients may have profited from unilateral success depending on the individual indication. As a consequence of these technically limited results it was concluded that the method currently qualifies for selected indications rather than for routine clinical application.

[1]  J. Daurès,et al.  Prospective evaluation of falloposcopy. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[2]  W. T. Smith ON A NEW METHOD OF TREATING STERILITY, BY THE REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS OF THE FALLOPIAN TUBES. , 1849 .

[3]  Y. Yoshimura,et al.  Falloposcopic tuboplasty for bilateral tubal occlusion. A novel infertility treatment as an alternative for in-vitro fertilization? , 1998, Human reproduction.

[4]  W. Grundfest,et al.  Falloposcopy: a microendoscopic technique for visual exploration of the human fallopian tube from the uterotubal ostium to the fimbria using a transvaginal approach. , 1990, Fertility and sterility.

[5]  I. Cooke,et al.  Falloposcopic comparison of unilateral and bilateral proximal tubal occlusive disease. , 1994, Human reproduction.

[6]  S. Lundberg,et al.  Falloposcopy in conjunction with laparoscopy: possibilities and limitations. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[7]  G. Adamson,et al.  Multicenter feasibility study of a new coaxial falloposcopy system. , 1997, The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

[8]  T. Mohri,et al.  Tubaloscope: Flexible glassfiber endoscope for intratubal observation , 1970 .

[9]  K. Diedrich,et al.  Transcervical falloscopic dilatation of proximal tubal occlusion. Is there an indication? , 1999, Human reproduction.

[10]  B. Dunphy,et al.  Falloposcopic cannulation, oviductal appearances and prediction of treatment independent intrauterine pregnancy. , 1995, Human reproduction.

[11]  E. Surrey,et al.  The linear everting catheter: a nonhysteroscopic, transvaginal technique for access and microendoscopy of the fallopian tube. , 1992, Fertility and sterility.

[12]  D. Grow,et al.  Proximal tubal occlusion by hysterosalpingogram: a role for falloposcopy. , 1993, Fertility and Sterility.

[13]  B. Dunphy Office falloposcopic assessment in proximal tubal occlusive disease. , 1994, Fertility and sterility.

[14]  H. Foulot,et al.  Transcervical tubal cannulation and falloposcopy for the management of tubal pregnancy. , 1992, Human reproduction.

[15]  S G Thompson,et al.  Controversies in meta-analysis: the case of the trials of serum cholesterol reduction , 1993, Statistical methods in medical research.

[16]  G. Lowery,et al.  Transcervical access and intra-luminal imaging of the fallopian tube in the non-anaesthetized patient; preliminary results using a new technique for fallopian access. , 1992, Human reproduction.

[17]  F. Nezhat,et al.  Fimbrioscopy and Salpingoscopy in Patients With Minimal to Moderate Pelvic Endometriosis , 1990, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[18]  A. Decherney,et al.  Anything you can do I can do better ... or differently! , 1987, Fertility and sterility.

[19]  F. Rísquez,et al.  Transcervical tubal cannulation, past, present, and future. , 1993, Fertility and sterility.

[20]  P. Madélénat,et al.  Transcervical falloposcopy: preliminary experience. , 1993, Human reproduction.

[21]  B. Dunphy,et al.  A comparison of pain experienced during hysterosalpingography and in-office falloposcopy. , 1994, Fertility and sterility.

[22]  W. Sweeney The Interstitial Portion of the Uterine Tube—Its Gross Anatomy, Course, and Length , 1962 .

[23]  I D Cooke,et al.  Outpatient falloposcopy; intra‐luminal imaging of the fallopian tube by trans‐uterine fibre‐optic endoscopy as an outpatient procedure , 1992, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

[24]  B. Hédon,et al.  [Fallopian tube endoscopy in 1996]. , 1996, Contraception, fertilite, sexualite.

[25]  D. Grow,et al.  Transcervical tubal cannulation: a review. , 1993, Obstetrical & gynecological survey.

[26]  W. Grundfest,et al.  Falloposcopic classification and treatment of fallopian tube lumen disease. , 1992, Fertility and sterility.

[27]  E. Porcu,et al.  Births after transcervical gamete intrafallopian transfer with a falloposcopic delivery system. , 1997, Fertility and Sterility.