ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Role of Reconstructive Microsurgery in Tubal Infertility in Young Women.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of TISSEELMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- A novel machine learning model for predicting clinical pregnancy after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- True Brachial Artery Aneurysm in Patients with Previous Arterio-Venous Fistula Ligation and Immunosuppressant Therapy for Renal Transplantation: Case Report and Literature Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimHere, we retrospectively analyzed the success rate of reconstructive microsurgery for tubal infertility (RMTI) as a "first-line" approach to achieving tubal reversal and pregnancy after tubal infertility. PATIENTS AND
methodsDuring 9 consecutive years (2005-2014), 96 patients diagnosed with obstructive tubal infertility underwent RMTI (tubal reversal, salpingostomy, and/or tubal implantation) in our centre. The outcomes are presented in terms of tubal reversal rate and pregnancy and correlated with age, level of tubal obstruction, and duration of tubal infertility.
resultsThe overall tubal reversal rate was 87.56% (84 patients). The 48-month cumulative pregnancy rate was 78.04% (64 patients), of which seven ectopic pregnancies occurred (8.53%). The reversibility rate for women under 35 yo was 90.47%, with a birth rate of 73.01%. The reconstruction at the infundibular segments favored higher ectopic pregnancy rates (four ectopic pregnancies for anastomosis at infundibular level-57.14%, two for ampullary level-28.57%, and one for replantation technique-14.28%), with a significant value for
conclusionsIn the context of IVF "industrialization", reconstructive microsurgery for tubal infertility has become increasingly less favored. However, under available expertise and proper indication, RMTI can be successfully used to restore a woman's ability to conceive naturally with a high postoperative pregnancy rate overall, especially in women under 35 yo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.