Fallopian tube catheterization in the treatment of proximal tubal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Study question: What is the chance of clinical pregnancy when fallopian tube catheterization is used for proximal tubal obstruction? Summary answer: The pooled clinical pregnancy rate of tubal catheterization after proximal tubal obstruction is 27% (95% CI 25-30%). What is known already: Restoring fallopian tube patency by performing tubal catheterization has fallen out of favour since the increased availability of IVF. Our study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate reproductive outcomes following tubal catheterization for proximal tubal obstruction. Study design, size, duration: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 observational studies consisting of 1720 patients undergoing tubal catheterization for proximal tubal obstruction, who attempted to conceive naturally after the procedure. Participants/materials, setting, methods: Systematic literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A total of 2195 titles and abstracts were reviewed. Only studies that reported outcomes when tubal catheterization was performed with no other tubal surgery were included. Twenty-seven cohort studies matched the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Main results and the role of chance: The meta-analysis showed a pooled clinical pregnancy rate of 27% (95% CI 25-30%) after the use of tubal catheterization for unilateral or bilateral proximal tubal obstruction (27 studies, 1556 patients). In women with bilateral obstruction (14 studies, 617 patients), the clinical pregnancy rate was 27% (95% CI 23-32%). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the pooled cumulative clinical pregnancy rates were 22.3% (95% CI 17.8-27.8%) at 6 months, 25.8% (95% CI 21.1-31.5%) at 9 months, 26.4% (95% CI 23.0-30.2%) at 12 months, 26.0% (95% CI 22.8-29.7%) at 18 months, 27.0% (95% CI 24.0-30.5%) at 24 months, 27.9% (95% CI 24.9-31.3%) at 36 months and 28.5% (95% CI 25.5-31.8%) at 48 months. The pooled live birth rate (14 studies, 551 patients) was 22% (95% CI 18-26%). The pooled ectopic pregnancy rate (27 studies, 1556 patients) was 4% (95% CI 3-5%). The included studies scored satisfactorily on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Limitations, reasons for caution: The pooled clinical pregnancy rate after tubal catheterization was found to be almost comparable to that after IVF. However, included studies were small, non-comparative series with significant clinical heterogeneity in population characteristics, follow-up and surgical equipment, technique and experience. Wider implications of the findings: These findings suggest fallopian tube catheterization as an alternative strategy to IVF in patients presenting with proximal tubal obstruction. Further research should focus on comparing different surgical techniques of fallopian tube catheterization with IVF and provide cumulative reproductive outcomes over long-term follow-up. Study funding/competing interest(s): No funding was required and the authors have no competing interests to declare. Registration number: N/A.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,036 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».