The Effects of Conservative and Surgical Approaches in Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy on Fertility

Overview

Journal Ann Saudi Med

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Jun 10

PMID 38853473

Authors

Riza Dur

Aysel Nalcakan

Okan Aytekin

Derya Akdag Cirik

Basak Yaniktepe

Orhan Gelisen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Medical treatment, expectant approaches, and surgical treatment options are available in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Regardless of the treatment, in addition to its effectiveness, the main concern is to limit the risk of relapse and preserve fertility.

Objectives: Determine the impact of medical or surgical treatment for ectopic pregnancy on future fertility.

Design: Retrospective.

Setting: Department of obstrtrics and gynecolgy at Ankara Etlik Zübeyde Hanım Women's Health Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.

Patients And Methods: Patients who were treated for ectopic pregnancy between June 2016 and November 2019 were allocated into two groups. Expectant approach or medical treatment by methotrexate constituted the conservative treatment group while salpingectomy by laparoscopy indicated the surgical treatment group.

Main Outcome Measures: Fertility rates within two years following treatment were evaluated according to treatment options.

Sample Size: 202 patients.

Results: Of the 202 patients, 128 had medical treatment and 74 patients had surgical treatment for ectopic pregnancy. Of 272 diagnosed with ectopic pregnancy, 70 were excluded for various reasons. Parity and unemployment rate was significantly higher in the surgical treatment (=.006 and =.12, respectively). Moreover, ectopic mass size and serum β-hCG levels were significantly higher in the surgical treatment group (<.001 and <.001, respectively). There were no significant differences between the conservative and surgical treatment groups in time to pregnancy (17.0 months vs 19.0 months, =.255). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the conservative and surgical treatment groups with respect to history of infertility (=.12). There were no significant differences between the conservative and surgical treatment groups in terms of live birth (51.6% vs 44.6%) and ectopic pregnancy (2.3% vs 1.4%) (=.72 for both). There was no significant difference between the conservative and surgical treatment groups with respect to infertility rate (35.9% vs 41.9%, =.72) and admittance to the IVF program (3.9% vs 6.8%, =.39) following ectopic pregnancy treatment.

Conclusions: Reproductive outcomes did not differ significantly in women undergoing expectant management, medical treatment, and surgery for ectopic pregnancy. This finding suggests that clinicians should not hesitate to act in favor of surgical treatment for ectopic pregnancy even if there were concerns for future fertility.

Limitations: Retrospective study.

References

Pansky M, BUKOVSKY J, Golan A, Avrech O, Langer R, Weinraub Z . Reproductive outcome after laparoscopic local methotrexate injection for tubal pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1993; 60(1):85-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56041-5. View

Rashid M, Osman S, Khashoggi T, Kamal F . Factors affecting fertility following radical versus conservative surgical treatment for tubal pregnancy. Saudi Med J. 2001; 22(4):337-41. View

Jamard A, Turck M, Pham A, Dreyfus M, Benoist G . [Fertility and risk of recurrence after surgical treatment of an ectopic pregnancy (EP): Salpingostomy versus salpingectomy]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2015; 45(2):129-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2015.08.005. View

Coste J, Job-Spira N, Aublet-Cuvelier B, Germain E, Glowaczower E, Fernandez H . Incidence of ectopic pregnancy. First results of a population-based register in France. Hum Reprod. 1994; 9(4):742-5. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138582. View

Lipscomb G, Givens V, Meyer N, Bran D . Previous ectopic pregnancy as a predictor of failure of systemic methotrexate therapy. Fertil Steril. 2004; 81(5):1221-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.09.070. View

Tay J, Moore J, Walker J . Ectopic pregnancy. BMJ. 2000; 320(7239):916-9. PMC: 1117838. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7239.916. View

Ankum W, Mol B, van der Veen F, Bossuyt P . Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 1996; 65(6):1093-9. View

Nybo Andersen A, Wohlfahrt J, Christens P, Olsen J, Melbye M . Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ. 2000; 320(7251):1708-12. PMC: 27416. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7251.1708. View

Lundorff P, Thorburn J, Lindblom B . Fertility outcome after conservative surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy evaluated in a randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 1992; 57(5):998-1002. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)55015-8. View

10.

Mol F, van Mello N, Strandell A, Strandell K, Jurkovic D, Ross J . Salpingotomy versus salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy (ESEP study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014; 383(9927):1483-1489. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60123-9. View

11.

Kirk E, Condous G, Bourne T . Ectopic pregnancy deaths: what should we be doing?. Hosp Med. 2004; 65(11):657-60. DOI: 10.12968/hosp.2004.65.11.17044. View

12.

Fernandez H, Capmas P, Lucot J, Resch B, Panel P, Bouyer J . Fertility after ectopic pregnancy: the DEMETER randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(5):1247-53. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det037. View

13.

Turan V . Fertility outcomes subsequent to treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy in younger Turkish women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2011; 24(5):251-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpag.2010.12.007. View

14.

Bouyer J, Coste J, Shojaei T, Pouly J, Fernandez H, Gerbaud L . Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a comprehensive analysis based on a large case-control, population-based study in France. Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 157(3):185-94. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwf190. View

15.

Akdas Reis Y, Varli E, Dereli M, Dikici Aktas T, Tolunay H, Erkaya S . Short-term Reproductive Outcomes of Nulliparous Women with Previous Ectopic Pregnancy. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2022; 32(8):987-990. DOI: 10.29271/jcpsp.2022.08.987. View