Fallopian tube catheterization in the treatment of proximal tubal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".