ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Proximal tubal occlusion first or oocyte retrieval first for patients with hydrosalpinx?
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of the timing of surgical treatment of hydrosalpinx on in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic single-sperm injection pregnancy outcomes in patients with tubal factor infertility.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2026Article
- Tubal occlusion in patients with hydrosalpinx modifies the uterine environment and improves in vitro fertilization outcomes within 7 months.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- An innovative application of the holmium laser: a case report of hysteroscopic holmium laser proximal fallopian tubal occlusion.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOur study aimed to investigate the best time to manage hydrosalpinx to improve pregnancy outcomes during in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET).
methodsPatients with hydrosalpinx who received IVF treatment were analyzed retrospectively. And two groups were included to compare the effects of different timing treatment of hydrosalpinx on IVF pregnancy outcomes, "Proximal Tubal Occlusion First Group" (Group Ligation-COH) and "Oocyte Retrieval First Group" (Group COH-Ligation). The main outcome measures included: ovarian response indexes, laboratory indexes and clinical pregnancy outcomes. Univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analysis was performed for outcome indicators, and the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used.
resultsA total of 1490 patients were included (n = 976 Ligation-COH and n = 514 COH-Ligation). The Gn starting dose and MII rate in group Ligation-COH were significantly higher than those in group COH-Ligation (203.33 ± 58.20 vs. 203.33 ± 58.20, 81.58% vs. 80.28%, P < 0.05). The number of oocytes obtained and the number of available D3 embryos in group COH-Ligation were higher than those in group Ligation-COH (15.10 ± 7.58 vs. 13.45 ± 6.42, 10.92 ± 5.81 vs. 9.94 ± 5.15, P < 0.05). Although the number of ET cycles per IVF cycle in group COH-Ligation was higher than that in group Ligation-COH (1.88 ± 1.00 vs. 1.48 ± 0.70, P < 0.05), the biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, live birth rate and cumulative live birth rate in group Ligation-COH were significantly higher than those in group COH-Ligation (60.83% vs. 46.27% for biochemical pregnancy, 55.69% vs. 38.5% for clinical pregnancy, 26.18% vs. 17.74% for multiple pregnancy, 47.08% vs. 25.26% for live birth, 69.47% vs. 47.47% for cumulative live birth, P < 0.05), and the miscarriage rate in group Ligation-COH was lower than that in group COH-Ligation (10.47% vs. 17.20 for early abortion, 4.49% vs. 15.86% for late abortion, P < 0.05). In logistic regression analysis, after adjustment for age and multiple factors, the above results were still statistically significant differences (P < 0.001). For elderly patients, the clinical pregnancy rate, multiple birth rate and live birth rate in group Ligation-COH were also higher than those in group COH-Ligation (P < 0.001). No significant differences were detected for patients with diminished ovarian reserve.
conclusionsFor the choice of ligation operation time, we recommend that patients choose tubal ligation first and then ovulation induction and oocyte retrieval treatment.
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.