ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Comparison of tubal reanastomosis and in vitro fertilisation for restoring fertility in women with a history of tubal ligation.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the efficacy of tubal reanastomosis and in vitro fertilisation in achieving reproductive success in women who had undergone tubal ligation and desired additional children.
methodsThis study included 152 and 92 patients who underwent tubal reanastomosis and in vitro fertilisation after tubal ligation, respectively, at a university-affiliated in vitro fertilisation centre between January 2020 and December 2023. The primary endpoint was clinical outcomes, cost and time to achieve live birth.
resultsThe clinical pregnancy rates were similar between the two groups. The ectopic pregnancy rate in the tubal reanastomosis group was significantly higher than that in the in vitro fertilisation group (16.3% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.021). The live birth rate in the in vitro fertilisation group was significantly higher than that in the tubal reanastomosis group (48.9% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.041). The interval to delivery after treatment in the in vitro fertilisation group was significantly shorter than that in the tubal reanastomosis group (p = 0.001). Among the age-stratified subgroups (< 35, 35-38 and ≥ 38 years), the in vitro fertilisation group demonstrated significantly higher live birth rates than the tubal reanastomosis group in the 35-38 years subgroup (65.6% vs. 36.5%; p = 0.010). In the ≥ 38-year subgroup, the in vitro fertilisation group showed a non-significant trend toward a lower miscarriage rate (13.3% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.128) and a higher live birth rate (26.7% vs. 14.8%, p = 0.144) than the tubal reanastomosis group. When the age group was further stratified into 38-42 years and ≥ 42 years, live birth rates were comparable between the two groups among patients aged ≥ 42 years.
conclusionsThis study elucidated significant differences in reproductive outcomes between tubal reanastomosis and in vitro fertilisation in women with a history of tubal ligation, emphasising the critical role of age.
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.