OBJECTIVE: To verify the usefulness and reliability of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) as a screening tool for evaluating infertility in women in comparison with conventional diagnostic laparoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Sixty consecutive women with unexplained primary infertility were prospectively enrolled into the study. After examination of the whole pelvic cavity, tubal patency was evaluated and the uterine cavity studied by hysteroscopy. Immediately after THL, conventional laparoscopy was peformed. Main outcome measures were the success rate of accessing the pouch of Douglas, rate of complete examinations, rate of complications and accuracy of THL in comparison with laparoscopy. RESULTS: Success rate of accessing the pouch of Douglas and performing THL was 93.3%. The rate of complete evaluation of all the pelvic structures was 76.8%. In studying tubal pathology, 77.8% agreement was found between the two techniques. Diagnosis of endometriosis was correct in 55.5% of patients. Overall, THL results correlated closely with conventional laparoscopic results in 92.86%, but the diagnostic accuracy of THL was 100% in cases of complete pelvic evaluation. CONCLUSION: THL is a feasible, reliable and safe procedure and can be considered an alternative procedure for evaluating infertility in women. In cases of incomplete pelvic evaluation or abnormal findings, conventional laparoscopy is indicated as the second step in the evaluation.

Casa, A., Sesti, F., Marziali, M., Piccione, E. (2002). Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy vs. conventional laparoscopy for evaluating unexplained primary infertility in women. JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, 47(8), 617-620.

Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy vs. conventional laparoscopy for evaluating unexplained primary infertility in women

SESTI, FRANCESCO;PICCIONE, EMILIO
2002-01-01

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To verify the usefulness and reliability of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) as a screening tool for evaluating infertility in women in comparison with conventional diagnostic laparoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Sixty consecutive women with unexplained primary infertility were prospectively enrolled into the study. After examination of the whole pelvic cavity, tubal patency was evaluated and the uterine cavity studied by hysteroscopy. Immediately after THL, conventional laparoscopy was peformed. Main outcome measures were the success rate of accessing the pouch of Douglas, rate of complete examinations, rate of complications and accuracy of THL in comparison with laparoscopy. RESULTS: Success rate of accessing the pouch of Douglas and performing THL was 93.3%. The rate of complete evaluation of all the pelvic structures was 76.8%. In studying tubal pathology, 77.8% agreement was found between the two techniques. Diagnosis of endometriosis was correct in 55.5% of patients. Overall, THL results correlated closely with conventional laparoscopic results in 92.86%, but the diagnostic accuracy of THL was 100% in cases of complete pelvic evaluation. CONCLUSION: THL is a feasible, reliable and safe procedure and can be considered an alternative procedure for evaluating infertility in women. In cases of incomplete pelvic evaluation or abnormal findings, conventional laparoscopy is indicated as the second step in the evaluation.
2002
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Esperti anonimi
Settore MED/40 - GINECOLOGIA E OSTETRICIA
English
Con Impact Factor ISI
Endometriosis; Female; Infertility; Laparoscopy; Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy
Casa, A., Sesti, F., Marziali, M., Piccione, E. (2002). Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy vs. conventional laparoscopy for evaluating unexplained primary infertility in women. JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, 47(8), 617-620.
Casa, A; Sesti, F; Marziali, M; Piccione, E
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/49898
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 24
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 20
social impact