Conservative versus radical surgery for tubal pregnancy

Clausen, Ingo

doi:10.3109/00016349609033276

Cited by 85 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…No significant difference regarding pregnancy rate between operative laparoscopy and laparotomy could be observed. The results of the present study regarding repeat EP are in agreement with Clausen [11], who also found no difference in the occurrence of repeat EP after conservative or radical surgical treatment. In Clausen's material, 10% had a repeat EP after conservative treatment and 15% after radical treatment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Reproductive Outcome after Surgical Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy

Kjellberg

Lalos²,

Lalos³

2000

Gynecol Obstet Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Reproductive outcome after laparoscopy or laparotomy performed for treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Methods: Data of 104 women were collected by a questionnaire and from medical records. Results: No differences in pregnancy rate were found comparing the two different operative procedures. Women with a normal contralateral fallopian tube had a better pregnancy rate compared with those with a damaged contralateral tube. Conclusions: The crucial factor for future reproductive outcome after surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy is the status of the contralateral tube.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Reproductive Outcome after Surgical Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy

Kjellberg

Lalos²,

Lalos³

2000

Gynecol Obstet Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 This procedure preserves the fallopian tube, thereby maintaining reproductive capacity, but, in comparison with salpingectomy, carries an increased risk of persistent trophoblast and, possibly, of repeat ectopic pregnancy in the operated tube. 2,3 Another approach that preserves tubal integrity is medical treatment, in particular the systemic administration of methotrexate. Since laparoscopy is no longer essential for diagnosis in patients with suspected ectopic pregnancy, methotrexate offers the option of completely non-surgical management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomised trial of systemic methotrexate versus laparoscopic salpingostomy in tubal pregnancy

Hajenius

Engelsbel

Mol³

et al. 1997

The Lancet

240

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Interpretation In haemodynamically stable patients with unruptured tubal pregnancy, systemic methotrexate and laparoscopic salpingostomy were successful in treating the majority of cases. We found no significant difference between the treatments in the homolateral patency rate. Subsequent fertility outcome has to be awaited to show which treatment yields better fertility prospects.

show abstract

“…Similarly, a prospective study of 88 patients by Ory et al indicated that the surgical method had no effect on subsequent fertility in women with an intact contra-lateral tube [21]. Several other studies reported that the status of the contra-lateral tube, the presence of adhesions, and the presence of other risk factors, such as endometriosis, have a more significant impact on future fertility than does the choice of surgical procedure [ 61 ] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%