Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:29:17.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

39 - Surgical Preparation of the Patient for In Vitro Fertilization

from PART III - ASSISTED REPRODUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

By
Eric S. Surrey
Edited by
Botros R. M. B. Rizk ,
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco ,
Hassan N. Sallam  and
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Botros R. M. B. Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco
Affiliation:
Rey Juan Carlos University School of Medicine,
Hassan N. Sallam
Affiliation:
University of Alexandria School of Medicine
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Affiliation:
University of Crete
Get access

Summary

Surgical management of tubal abnormalities, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids has traditionally been employed to enhance fertility in the absence of the assisted reproductive technologies as has been reviewed elsewhere in this text. Can these procedures be employed not only as alternatives to the assisted reproductive technologies but also as adjuncts? In this chapter, we will review the evidence surrounding the effect of reproductive surgery for these conditions on in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcome.

DISTAL TUBAL DISEASE

IVF was originally designed to overcome infertility due to irreversible tubal disease or for those who did not wish to undergo surgical repair. A large body of literature has reported that either unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinges may exert deleterious effects on IVF cycle outcome (1–10) (Table 39.1). Camus et al. performed a meta-analysis of nine retrospective controlled series and five published abstracts encompassing 1,004 patients with hydrosalpinges and 4,588 control patients with tubal factor infertility but without hydrosalpinges (11). Significant decreases in pregnancy, implantation, and delivery rates were appreciated in the hydrosalpinx groups (odds ratios 0.64, 0.63, and 0.58, respectively). Only one investigation included in the meta-analysis noted no difference in pregnancy or implantation rates in hydrosalpinx patients as opposed to controls (12). One confounding variable in that particular trial may be the low implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates in the control group.

Keywords

assisted reproductive technologydistal tubal diseaseendometriosisin vitro fertilizationsalpingectomyuterine fibroidsproximal tubal occlusion
Type
Chapter
Information
Infertility and Assisted Reproduction , pp. 361 - 370
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wainer, R, Camus, E, Camier, B, Martin, C, Vasseur, C, Merlet, F. Does hydrosalpinx reduce the pregnancy rate after in vitro fertilization?Fertil Steril 1997;68:1022–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, AN, Yue, Z, Meng, FJ, Petersen, K. Low implantation rate after in-vitro fertilization in patients with hydrosalpinges diagnosed by ultrasonography. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1935–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strandell, A, Waldenstrom, U, Nilsson, L, Hamberger, L. Hydrosalpinx reduces in-vitro fertilization/embryo transfer pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod 1994;9:861–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasebji, M, Sims, J, Butler, L, Muashe, S. Reduced pregnancy rate with unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinx after in vitro fertilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994;56:129–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandromme, J, Chasse, E, Lejeune, B, Rysselborge, M, Delvigne, A, Leroy, F. Hydrosalpinges in in-vitro fertilization: an unfavorable prognostic feature. Hum Reprod 1995;10:579–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, E, Akman, M, Damewood, M, Garcia, J. Deleterious effect of the presence of hydrosalpinx on implantation and pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1996;66:122–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blazar, AS, Hogan, JW, Seifer, DB, Frishman, GF, Wheeler, CA, Haning, RV. The impact of hydrosalpinx on successful pregnancy in tubal factor infertility treated by in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1997;67:517–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharara, F, Scott, R, Marut, E, Queenan, J. In vitro fertilization outcomes in women with hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod 1996;11:526–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, DL, Sagoskin, AW, Widra, EA, Levy, MJ. The adverse effect of hydrosalpinges on in vitro fertilization pregnancy rate and the benefit of surgical correction. Fertil Steril 1998;69:41–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akman, M, Garcia, S, Damewood, M, Watts, L, Katz, E. Hydrosalpinx affects the implantation of previously cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1013–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camus, E, Poncelet, C, Goffinet, F, et al. Pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1243–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, EH, Yeung, WS, Ho, PC. The presence of hydrosalpinx may not adversely affect the implantation and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization. J Reprod Genet 1997;14:508–12.Google Scholar
Mansour, RT, Aboulghar, MA, Serour, GI, Raafat, R. Fluid accumulation of the uterine cavity before embryo transfer: a possible hindrance for implantation. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1991;8:157–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mukherjee, T, Copperman, AB, McCaffrey, C, Cook, CA, Bustillo, M, Obasaju, MF. Hydrosalpinx fluid has embryotoxic effects on murine embryogenesis: a case for prophylactic salpingectomy. Fertil Steril 1996;66:851–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beyler, SA, James, KP, Fritz, MA, Meyer, WR. Hydrosalpingeal fluid inhibits in-vitro embryonic development in a murine model. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2724–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawe, VJ, Liu, J, Shaffer, S, Compton, MG, Garcia, JE, Katz, E. Effect of human hydrosalpinx fluid on murine embryo development and implantation. Fertil Steril 1997;68:668–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrighi, C, Lucas, H, El-Mowafi, D, Campana, A, Chardonnens, D. Effects of human hydrosalpinx fluid on in-vitro murine fertilization. Hum Reprod 2001;16:676–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajonuma, L, Chan, L, Ng, E, et al. Characterization of epithelial cell culture from human hydrosalpinges and effects of its conditioned medium on embryo development and sperm motility. Hum Reprod 2003;18:291–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toth, M, Jeremias, J, Ledger, WJ, Witkin, SS. In vivo tumor necrosis factor production in women with salpingitis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;174:359–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Barmat, L, Nasti, K, Yang, X, Spandorfer, S, Kowalik, A, El-Roiey, A. Are cytokines and growth factors responsible for the detrimental effects of hydrosalpingeal fluid on pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1999;72:1110–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lam, P, Briton-Jones, C, Cheung, C, Po, L, Cheung, L, Hames, F. Increased mRNA expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptor (flt-1) in the hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2264–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strandell, A, Twinburn, J, Wallin, A. The presence of cytokines and growth factors in hydrosalpingeal fluid. J Assist Reprod Genet 2004;21:241–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, WR, Castelbaum, AJ, Somkuti, S, et al. Hydrosalpinges adversely affect markers of endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1393–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savains, R, Pedrini, J, Flores, R, Fabris, G, Zettler, C. Expression of alpha 1 and beta 3 integrins subunits in the endometrium of patients with tubal phimosis or hydrosalpinx. Fertil Steril 2006; 85:188–92.Google Scholar
Daftary, G, Taylor, H. Hydrosalpinx fluid diminishes endometrial HOXA 10 expression. Fertil Steril 2002;78:577–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, B, Koong, M, Lee, J, et al. Hydrosalpinx fluid inhibits trophoblast cell proliferation in vitro culture system: implication for early implantation failure in women with hydrosalpinx fluid. Abstr O-197. Fertil Steril 1999;72:S76.Google Scholar
Ng, E, Chan, C, Tang, O, Ho, P. Comparison of endometrial and subendometrial blood flows among patients with and without hydrosalpinx shown on scanning during in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 2006;85:333–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strandell, A, Lindhard, A, Waldenstrom, U, Thorburn, J, Janson, P, Hamberger, L. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: a prospective randomized multicentre trial in Scandinavia on salpingectomy prior to IVF. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2762–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dechaud, H, Daures, JP, Arnal, F, Humeau, C, Hedon, B. Does previous salpingectomy improve implantation and pregnancy rates in patients with severe tubal factor infertility who are undergoing in vitro fertilization? A pilot prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 1998;69:1020–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, N, Mak, W, Sowter, M. Laparoscopic salpingectomy for women with hydrosalpinges enhances the success of IVF: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2002;17:543–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sagoskin, A, Lessey, B, Mottla, G, et al. Salpingectomy of proximal tubal occlusion of unilateral hydrosalpinx increases the potential for spontaneous pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2634–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czemiczky, G, Landgren, BM, Fried, G, Wramsby, H. High tubal damage grade is associated with low pregnancy rate in women undergoing in-vitro fertilization treatment. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2438–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deWit, W, Gowrising, CJ, Kuik, DJ, Lens, JW, Schats, R. Only hydrosalpinges visible on ultrasound are associated with reduced implantation and pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1696–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bildirci, I, Bukulmez, O, Ensari, A, Yarali, H, Guregan, T. A prospective evaluation of the effect of salpingectomy on endometrial receptivity in cases of women with communicating hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod 2001;96:2422–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, C, Ito, M, Itakura, A, Hsai, M, Ninta, O, Mizutani, S. A prospective evaluation of the effect of salpingectomy on endometrial lymphocyte clusters in patients with hydrosalpinges. Fertil Steril 2004;80:149–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seli, E, Kagiski, U, Lakniak, H, et al. Removal of hydrosalpinges increases endometrial leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) expression at the time of the implantation window. Hum Reprod 2005; 20:3012–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharif, K, Kaufmann, M, Sharma, V. Heterotopic pregnancy obtained after in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer following bilateral total salpingectomy: case report. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1966–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
San Filippo, JS, Lincoln, SR. Surgical treatment of diseases of the ovary. In: Keye, W, Chang, R, Rebar, R, Soules, M, eds. Infertility: Evaluation and Treatment. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1995:539–51.
McComb, P, Relbeke, L. Decreasing the number of ovulations in the rabbit with surgical division of the blood vessels between the fallopian tube and ovary. J Reprod Med 1984;29:827–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Lass, A, Ellenbogen, A, Croucher, C, et al. Effect of salpingectomy on ovarian response to superovulation in an in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer program. Fertil Steril 1998;70:1035–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, C, Ng, E, Li, C, Ho, P. Impaired ovarian blood flow and reduced antral follicle count following laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2175–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelbaya, T, Navio, L, Fitzgerald, C, Horne, G, Bason, D, Veherman, B. Ovarian response to gonadotropins after laparoscopic salpingectomy or the division of fallopian tubes for hydrosalpinges. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1464–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dar, P, Sachs, AS, Strassburger, D, Bukovsky, I, Arieli, S. Ovarian function before and after salpingectomy in artificial reproductive technology patients. Hum Reprod 2000;15:142–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tal, J, Paltieli, Y, Korobotchka, R, Ziskind, G, Eibschitz, I, Ohel, G. Ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation in repeated IVF cycles after unilateral salpingectomy. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002; 18:451–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandell, A, Lindhard, A, Waldenstrom, U, Thorburn, J. Prophylactic salpingectomy does not impair the ovarian response of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1135–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surrey E Schoolcraft, W. Laparoscopic management of hydrosalpinges prior to in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET): salpingectomy vs. proximal tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril 2001;75:612–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadtmauer, L, Riehl, R, Toma, S, Talbert, L. Cauterization of hydrosalpinges before in vitro fertilization is an effective surgical treatment associated with improved pregnancy rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:367–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerin, J and Cattanach, S. Successful pregnancy outcome with the use of in vitro fertilization after essure hysteroscopic sterilization. Fertil Steril 2007;87:1212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharara, F, Scott, R Jr., Marut, E, Queenan, J Jr. In-vitro fertilization outcome in women with hydrosalpinx. Hum Reprod 1996;11:526–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurst, B, Tucker, K, Awoniyi, C, Schlaff, W. Hydrosalpinx treated with extended doxycycline does not compromise the success of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2001;75:1017–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammadieh, N, Afnan, M, Khaldoun, S, Evans, J, Amso, N. The effect of hydrosalpinx on IVF outcome: a prospective randomized controlled trial of ultrasound guided hydrosalpinx aspiration during egg collection. Abstr P-35. Fertil Steril 2003;80: S131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voorhis, B, Sparks, A, Syrop, C, Stovall, D. Ultrasound-guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges is associated with improved pregnancy and implantation rates after in-vitro fertilization cycles. Hum Reprod 1998;13:736–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aboulghar, M, Mansour, R, Serour, G, Settar, M, Awad, M, Amin, Y. Transvaginal ultrasonic guided aspiration of pelvic inflammatory cystic masses before ovulation induction for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1990:53;311–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sowter, M, Akande, V, Williams, J, Hull, M. Is the outcome of in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer treatment improved by spontaneous or surgical drainage of a hydrosalpinx?Hum Reprod 1997;10:2147–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloeche, M, Schreiner, T, Lisse, K. Recurrence of hydrosalpinges after transvaginal aspiration of tubal fluid in an IVF cycle with development of a serometra. Hum Reprod 1997;12:266–71.Google Scholar
Hinkley, M, Milki, A. Rapid reaccumulation of hydrometra after drainage at embryo transfer in patients with hydrosalpinx. Fertil Steril 2003;80:1268–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandell, A, Lindhard, A, Eckerlind, I. Cost effectiveness analysis of salpingectomy prior to IVF based on a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2005;20:3289–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, C, Lee, C, Lai, Y, Tsai, C, Chang, M, Soong, Y. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and hysteroscopy in female infertility. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1996;3:581–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerin, J, Surrey, E. Transvaginal imaging and the infertility patient. Obstet Gynecol Clin (NA). 1991;18:749–77.Google ScholarPubMed
Battarowich, O, Kurtz, A, Pennell, R, et al. Pitfalls in the sonographic diagnosis of uterine fibroids. Am J Roentgenol 1988;151:725–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shamma, F, Lee, G, Gutmann, J, Lavy, G. The role of office hysteroscopy in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1992;58:1237–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, F, Abdelmassih, V, Diamond, M. Uterine cavity findings and hysteroscopic intervention in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer who repeatedly cannot conceive. Fertil Steril 2003;80:1371–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroon, C, Jansen, F, Louwe, L, Dieben, S, Houwelingen, H, Trimbos, J. Technology assessment of saline contrast hysterosonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:945–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coutinko, V, Maie, H. The contractile response of the human uterus, fallopian tubes and ovary to prostaglandins in vivo. Fertil Steril 1971;22:539–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deligdish, L, Lowenthal, M. Endometrial changes associated with myomata of the uterus. J Clin Pathol 1970;23:676–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, E, Ho, P. Doppler ultrasound examination of uterine arteries on the day of oocyte retrieval in patients with uterine fibroids undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2002;17:765–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sladkevicius, P, Valentin, L, Marsal, K. Transvaginal Doppler examination of uteri with myoma. J Clin Ultrasound 1996;24:135–40.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rein, M, Powell, W, Walter, F, et al. Cytogenetic abnormalities in uterine myomas are associated with myoma size. Mol Hum Reprod 1998;4:83–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lepper, P, Catherino, W, Segars, J. A new hypothesis about the origin of uterine fibroids based on gene expression profiling with microarrays. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:415–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritts, E. Fibroids and infertility: a systematic review of the evidence. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001;56:483–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahri, J, Ashkenazi, J, Feldberg, D, Dicker, D, Orvieto, R, Ben Rafael, Z. Effect of uterine leiomyomata on the results of in vitro fertilization treatment. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2576–8.Google Scholar
Stovall, D, Parrish, S, Voorhis, B, Hahn, S, Sparks, A, Syrop, C. Uterine leiomyomas reduce the efficacy of assisted reproduction cycles. Hum Reprod 1998;13:192–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldar-Geva, T, Meagher, S, Healy, D, MacLachlan, V, Breheny, S, Wood, C. Effect of intramural, subserosal, and submucosal uterine fibroids on the outcome of assisted reproductive technology treatment. Fertil Steril 1998;70:687–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, R, Khalaf, Y, Yeong, C-T, Seed, P, Taylor, A, Braude, P. A prospective controlled study of the effect of intramural fibroids on the outcome of assisted conception. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2411–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donnez, J, Jadoul, P. What are the implications of myomas on fertility?Hum Reprod 2002;17:1424–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surrey, E, Lietz, A, Schoolcraft, W. Impact of intramural leiomyomata in patients with normal endometrial cavity on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycle outcome. Fertil Steril 2001;75:405–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olivera, F, Abdelmassih, V, Diamond, M, Dozortseo, D, Melo, N, Abdelmassih, R. Impact of subserosal and intramural uterine fibroids that do not distort the endometrial cavity on the outcome of in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2004;81:582–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarali, H, Bukulmez, O. The effect of intramural and subserous uterine fibroids on implantation and clinical pregnancy rates in patients having intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2002;266:30–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jun, S, Ginsburg, E, Racowsky, C, Wise, L, Hornstein, M. Uterine leiomyomas and their effect on in vitro fertilization outcome: a retrospective study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;13:139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Check, J, Choe, J, Lee, G, Dietterich, C. The effect on IVF outcome of small intramural fibroids not compressing the uterine cavity as determined by a prospective matched control study. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1244–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoud, M, Patterson, R, Muasher, S, Coddington, C. Effect of myomas on prior myomectomy or in vitro fertilization (IVF) performance. J Assist Reprod Genet 1992;9:655–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surrey E, Minjarez D, Stevens J, Schoolcraft, W. Effect of myomectomy on the outcome of the assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1473–9.Google Scholar
Bergendal, A, Naffah, S, Nagy, C, et al. Outcome of IVF in patients with endometriosis in comparison with tubal-factor infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998;15:530–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, C, Gutierrez, A, Vidal, A, et al. Outcome of patients with endometriosis in assisted reproduction: results from in-vitro fertilization and oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 1994;9:725–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wardle, PG, Mitchell, JD, McLaughlin, EA, et al. Endometriosis and ovulatory disorder: reduced fertilization in vitro compared with tubal and unexplained infertility. Lancet 1985;2:236–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arici, A, Oral, E, Bukulmez, O, et al. The effect of endometriosis on implantation: results from the Yale University in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer program. Fertil Steril 1996;65:603–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivennes, F, Feldberg, D, Liu, HC, et al. Endometriosis: a stage by stage analysis in the role of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1995;64:392–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geber, S, Paraschos, T, Atkinson, G, et al. Results of IVF in patients with endometriosis: the severity of the disease does not affect outcome, or the incidence of miscarriage. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1507–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnhart, K, Dunsmoor-Su, R, Coutifaris, C. Effect of endometriosis on in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2002;77:1148–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azem, F, Lessing, JB, Geva, E, et al. Patients with stages III and IV endometriosis have a poorer outcome of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer than patients with tubal infertility. Fertil Steril 1999;72:1107–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pal, L, Shifren, JL, Isaacson, K, et al. Impact of varying stages of endometriosis on the outcome of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998;15:27–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dlugi, A, Loy, R, Dieterle, S, et al. The effect of endometriomas on in vitro fertilization outcome. J In Vitro Fertil Emb Transf 1989;6:338–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yanushpolsky, E, Best, C, Jackson, K, et al. Effects of endometriomas on oocyte quality and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization cycles; a prospective case-controlled study. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998;15:193–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Azemi, M, Lopez Bernal, A, Steele, J, et al. Ovarian response to repeated controlled stimulation in in vitro cycles in patients with ovarian endometriosis. Hum Reprod 2000;15:72–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khamsi, F, Yavas, Y, Lacanna, IC, et al. Exposure of human oocytes to endometrioma fluid does not alter fertilization or early embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18:106–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surrey, M, Hill, D. Treatment of endometriosis by carbon dioxide laser during gamete intrafallopian transfer. J Am Coll Surg 1994;79:440–2.Google Scholar
Surrey, E, Schoolcraft, W. Does surgical management of endometriosis within 6 months of an in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycle improve outcome?J Assist Reprod Genet 2003;20:365–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboulghar, M, Mansour, R, Serour, G, et al. The outcome of in vitro fertilization in advanced endometriosis with previous surgery: a case-controlled study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:371–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canis, M, Pouly, S, Tamburro, S,et al. Ovarian response during embryo transfer cycles after laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy for endometriotic cysts of >3 cm diameter. Hum Reprod 2001;12:2583–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnez, J, Wyns, C, Nisolle, M. Does ovarian surgery for endometriomas impair the ovarian response to gonadotropin?Fertil Steril 2001;76:662–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marconi, G, Vilela, M, Quintana, R, et al. Laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy of endometriomas does not affect ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation. Fertil Steril 2002;78:876–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, H-Y, Lee, R, Hwu, Y-M, et al. Poor response of ovaries with endometrioma previously treated with cystectomy to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002;19:507–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-Velasco, J, Corona, J, Requena, A, Remohi, J, Simon, C, Pellicer, A. Should we operate on ovarian endometriomas prior to IVF?Fertil Steril 2002;78:S203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surrey, E, Silverberg, K, Surrey, M, Schoolcraft, W. The effect of prolonged GnRH agonist therapy on in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer cycle outcome in endometriosis patients: a multicenter randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2002;78:699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chedid, S, Camus, W, Smitz, J, et al. Comparison among different ovarian stimulation regimens for assisted procreation procedures in patients with endometriosis. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2406–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wardle, P, Foster, P, Mitchel, J, et al. Endometriosis and IVF: effect of prior therapy. Lancet 1986;8475(1):276–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicker, D, Goldman, GA, Ashkenazi, J, et al. The value of pretreatment with long-term gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue in IVF-ET therapy of severe endometriosis. Hum Reprod 1990;5:418–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, S, Edwards, R. High rates of pregnancy after long-term down-regulation of women with severe endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:812–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, P, Jackson, A, Bernard, A, Shaw, R. Pretreatment with gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue prior to in vitro fertilization for patients with endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;52:211–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakamura, K, Oosawa, M, Kondou, I, et al. Menotropin stimulation after prolonged gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist pretreatment for in vitro fertilization in patients with endometriosis. J Assist Reprod Genet 1992;9:113–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remorgida, V, Anserini, P, Croce, S, et al. Comparison of different ovarian stimulation protocols for gamete intrafallopian transfer in patients with minimal and mild endometriosis. Fertil Steril 1990;53:1060–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sallam, H, Garcia-Velasco, J, Dias, S, Arici, A. Long-term pituitary down-regulation before in vitro fertilization (IVF) for women with endometriosis. The Cochrane Database for Systemic Reviews 2006, Iss. No. 1 Art No.: CD004635. pub 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imai, A, Takagi, A, Tamaya, T. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog repairs reduced endometrial cell apoptosis in endometriosis in vitro. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1142–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taketani, Y, Kuo, T-M, Mizuno, M. Comparison of cytokine levels and embryo toxicity in peritoneal fluid in infertile women with untreated or treated endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:265–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharpe-Timms, K, Keisler, L, McIntush, E, et al. Tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase-1 concentrations are attenuated in peritoneal fluid and sera of women with endometriosis and restored in sera by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy. Fertil Steril 1998;69:1128–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garzetti, GG, Ciavattini, A, Provinciali, M, et al. Natural cytoxicity and GnRH agonist administration in advanced endometriosis: positive modulation on natural killer cell activity. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:234–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessey, BA. Medical management of endometriosis and infertility. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1089–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tei, C, Maruyama, T, Kuji, N, et al. Reduced expression of αvβ3 integrin in the endometrium of unexplained infertility patients with recurrent IVF-ET failures: improvement by danazol treatment. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003;20:13–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizk, B, Abdalla, H. Assisted Reproductive Technology in Endometriosis. In: Rizk, B, Abdalla, H (Eds.), Endometriosis. Second Ed.Oxford: United Kingdom, Health Press, 2003, chapter 6, pp. 74–76.Google Scholar
Rizk, B, Abdalla, H. In Vitro fertilization. In: Rizk, B, Abdalla, H (Eds.), Infertility and Assisted Reproductive Technology.Cambridge: United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2008, chapter 10, pp. 112–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×