Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38764191›Full record

SynthesisUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2025

Hydrosalpinx treatment before in-vitro fertilization: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

F Pérez-Milán, M Caballero-Campo, M Carrera-Roig, E Moratalla-Bartolomé, J A Domínguez-Arroyo, J L Alcázar-Zambrano, L Alonso-Pacheco, J A Carugno, Spanish Fertility Society Special Interest Group on Organic Reproductive Disorders

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

F Pérez-Milán *Reproductive Medicine Unit, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
M Caballero-Campo *Reproductive Medicine Unit, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
M Carrera-RoigReproductive Medicine Unit, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital Universitario Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
E Moratalla-BartoloméGynecological Surgery and Endoscopy Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
J A Domínguez-ArroyoCentro Extremeño de Reproducción Asistida, Badajoz, Spain.
J L Alcázar-ZambranoClínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
L Alonso-PachecoGynecological Endoscopy Unit, Gutenberg Center, Xanit International Hospital, Málaga, Spain.
J A CarugnoMiller School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Spanish Fertility Society Special Interest Group on Organic Reproductive Disorders

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the safety and effectiveness of different methods, both ablative and non-ablative, to treat hydrosalpinx in infertile patients before in-vitro fertilization embryo transfer (IVF-ET) via a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

methodsA structured literature search was conducted in common citation databases. Eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies comparing the effectiveness and/or safety of different hydrosalpinx treatments, including salpingectomy, laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion (LTO), insertion of an intratubal device (ITD), ultrasound-guided aspiration, sclerotherapy and expectant management. Primary outcomes were live birth, ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy. Miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and procedural complications were considered as secondary outcomes. The main NMA included only RCTs, while observational studies were included in a secondary aggregate NMA. Pooled effects were summarized as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI for direct and indirect comparisons, derived from random-effects models. Imprecision of NMA estimates was assessed by comparison of their 95% CIs with predefined thresholds for effect size considered to represent clinical relevance (OR < 0.9 or >1.1). Heterogeneity for NMA findings was estimated using the variance of the distribution of the underlying treatment effects (τ

resultsThe main analysis included nine RCTs, while an additional 17 observational studies were incorporated into the aggregate analysis. The NMA of RCTs revealed no significant differences in live birth rate between hydrosalpinx treatment methods, with LTO achieving the highest SUCRA value (0.9). Salpingectomy and ultrasound-guided aspiration significantly increased the ongoing pregnancy rate compared with no treatment (OR, 4.35 (95% CI, 1.70-11.14) and 2.80 (95% CI, 1.03-7.58), respectively), with salpingectomy having the highest SUCRA value (0.9). Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher following salpingectomy (OR, 2.24 (95% CI, 1.30-3.86)) and LTO (OR, 2.55 (95% CI, 1.20-5.51)) compared with no treatment, despite some heterogeneity; LTO had the highest SUCRA value (0.8). NMA showed no significant differences in secondary outcomes between treatments. Aggregate NMA indicated that sclerotherapy significantly increased the live birth rate compared with no treatment. Higher ongoing pregnancy rate was observed in patients treated with salpingectomy, ultrasound-guided aspiration and LTO compared to untreated patients, with salpingectomy having the highest SUCRA value (0.9). Except for ITD insertion, all interventions increased the clinical pregnancy rate compared with no treatment. LTO had a greater effect on clinical pregnancy rate compared to ultrasound-guided aspiration, with no significant differences in other pairwise comparisons. NMA ranked LTO as the most effective treatment for increasing the clinical pregnancy rate and reducing the miscarriage rate, while sclerotherapy was deemed safer with regard to the ovarian response to IVF stimulation.

conclusionsThis NMA fails to support the effectiveness of any hydrosalpinx treatment to improve the live birth rate following IVF-ET, although the beneficial effect of salpingectomy and ultrasound-guided aspiration on ongoing pregnancy rate and of salpingectomy and LTO on clinical pregnancy rate reinforces current recommendations. Based on the aggregated analysis, sclerotherapy could be an effective alternative to conventional laparoscopic techniques, with a favorable safety profile. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Fallopian Tube DiseasesFertilization in VitroInfertility, FemaleEmbryo TransferFemaleHumansLive BirthPregnancyPregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSalpingectomySclerotherapyTreatment OutcomeaspirationFallopian tubehydrosalpinxinfertilityinterventional ultrasonographyin‐vitro fertilizationIVFsalpingectomysclerotherapytubal obstructiontubal occlusion

Identifiers

PMID38764191
PMCPMC11961103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.