Importance of outpatient ultrasonografically guided transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy in the decision algorithm of care for the infertile couple.
The results of the Centre for Assisted Reproduction Gennet Liberec 2012–2013

Czech version

Authors: V. Mokrá; I. Petr; J. Soukeník
Authors‘ workplace: Gennet Liberec s. r. o., pracoviště asistované reprodukce, vedoucí lékař MUDr. I. Petr
Published in: Ceska Gynekol 2014; 79(3): 226-230

Overview

Objective:
Evaluation of the benefits of outpatient ultrasonografically guided transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (UTHL) in the decision algorithm of care for the infertile couple.

Design:
A retrospective study.

Methods:
Impact results of UTHL on the management of sterility treatment at 532 IVF center clients in the period between 1. 8. 2012 and 31. 12. 2013.

Results:
Physiological result was found in 46 cases (8.64%). Absolute tubal factor was confirmedat 56 cases (10.52%) – it means fluid absence in CD, relative tubal factor in 208 cases (39.09%), endometriosis in 159 cases (29.88%), adhesions in the abdominal cavity in 188 cases (35.33%), synechia of the cervix and/or in the uterine cavity in 35 cases (6.57%), polyp of cervix and/or in the uterine cavity in 38 cases (7.14%), hydrosalpinx in 31 cases (5.82%) , uterine anomalies in 17 cases (3.19%), myoma in 12 cases (2.25%) and tubal cysts at 5 cases (0.9%). 11 woman (2.06%) had adhesiones in places of punction in case we did not continue the operation. Complications have occurred in a total of 3 cases, one perforation of the uterine cavity and two women needed ATB therapy for infection (parametritis). One of them was admitted for one day observation.

Conclusion:
Minimally invasive procedure at one day surgery enables comprehensive diagnosis and individualizing of therapeutic procedure in the treatment of infertility without delay and at with high degree of safety for the client.

Keywords:
transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy, ultrasonografically guided transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy, endoscopy, assisted reproduction, the infertile couple

Sources

1. Akande, A., Hunt, LP., Cahill, DJ., et al. Differences in time to natural conception between women with unexplained infertility and infertile women with minor endometriosis. Hum Reprod, 2004, 19, p. 96–103.

2. Barnhart, K., Dunsmoore – Su., R., Coutifaris, C. Effect of endometriosis on in vitro fertilisation. Feril Steril, 2002, 77, p. 1148–1155.

3. Brosens, I., Campo, R., Gordts, S. Office hydrolaparoscopy in the early diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis and tubal infertility. Cur Opin Obstet Gynecol, 1999, 11, p. 371–377.

4. Diamond, E. Diagnostic culdoscopy in infertility: a study of 4000 outpatient procedures. J reprod Med, 1978, 21, p. 23–30.

5. Gordts, S., Campo, R., Rombauts, L., et al. Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy as an outpatient procedure for infertility investigation. Hum Reprod, 1998, 13, p. 99–103.

6. Gordts, S., Campo, R., Verhoeven, HC., Brosens, I. Atlas od transvaginal laparoscopy. Informa, United Kingdom Ltd.

7. Kowalczyk, D., Guzikowski, W., Maczka, M., Kubicki, J. Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) in diagnosis infertility. Čes Gynek, 2006, 71, 5, s. 408–410.

8. Mardešič, T. Transvaginální hydrolaparoskopie. Endoskopie, 2010, 19, 3 a 4, s. 136–137.

9. Palmer, R. Les explorations Foncionelles Gynécologique, 2nd ed. Paris: Masson, 1974, p. 226–228.

10. Sobek, A. jr., Vodička, J., Sobek, A. Transvaginální hydrolaparoskopie a ultrazvukově asistovaná hydrolaparoskopie – dvě ambulantní metody vyšetření ženské pánve. Čes Gynek, 2007, 72, 1, s. 11–15.

11. Sobek, A. Jr., Hammadeh, M., Vodicka, J., Sobek, A. Ultrasonographically guided transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2008, 87, 10, p. 1077–1080.

12. Waterlot, A., Nisolle, M., Chilli, H., et. al. International Group for Fertiloscopy Evaluation. Is laparoscopy still the gold standard in infertility assessment? A comparison of fertiloscopy versus laparoscopy in infertility. Results of an international multicentric prospective trial: the „FLY“ (Fertiloscopy – Laparoscopy) study. Hum Reprod, 2003, 18, p. 834–839.

13. Waterlot, A., Dreyfus, JM., Andine, JP. Evaluation of the performance of fertiloscopy in 160 consecutive infertile pacients with no obvious pathology. Hu. Reprod, 1999, 14, p. 707–711.

14. Zondervan, KT., Cardon, LR., Kennedy, SH. What makes a good case – controle study? Design issues for komplex traits such as endometriosis. Hum Reprod, 2002, 17, p. 415–423.