Fallopian tube reanastomosis by laparotomy versus laparoscopy: A meta-analysis

La Grange J. ; Kruger T.F. ; Steyn D.W. ; Van Der Merwe J.P. ; Siebert I. ; Matsaseng T. ; Viola M.I. (2012)


Objective: To compare efficacy of sterilization reversals by laparotomy versus laparoscopy. Design: Meta-analysis. Search Strategy: Electronic searches were carried out for randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective clinical studies. Search engines such as PubMed, Science Direct, Medline and the Cochrane database were made use of. Our restrictions were English human studies published from 1989 to January 2010. Interventions: Microsurgical tubal reanastomosis performed comparing laparoscopy with laparotomy using a microsurgical technique. Outcome Measures:Primary: overall pregnancy rates, including positive clinical pregnancy, intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates. Secondary: surgery time. Results: Three retrospective comparative studies were retrieved from international data that investigated laparotomy versus laparoscopy. A total number of 184 patients were included, 88 and 96 respectively undergoing laparoscopy and laparotomy. Pregnancy rates achieved by laparoscopy ranged from 65 to 80.5% (mean 74.43%) and by laparotomy from 70 to 80% (mean 71.33%). A subanalysis of two of the three comparative studies show that laparoscopy reversal surgery requires a statistically significant longer operative time than does laparotomy (p < 0.00001). Conclusions: There is no difference between the laparoscopy and laparotomy approach to tubal reanastomosis when regarding overall pregnancy rates, intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates. Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Please refer to this item in SUNScholar by using the following persistent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/49283
This item appears in the following collections: