Search

The additional value of laparoscopy was investigated with respect to diagnosis and further treatment decisions after abnormal hysterosalpingography (HSG) and prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI). In a retrospective chart review, the number of patients with abnormal HSG who finally need IVF treatment based on the laparoscopic findings was evaluated. Independent of whether HSG showed unilateral or bilateral tubal pathology, IVF was the final treatment decision in only 74 (29%) cases where laparoscopy showed bilateral abnormalities. IUI treatment was advised in 121 (48%) patients with laparoscopically normal findings or unilateral abnormalities. Fifty-seven (23%) patients were treated by IUI after receiving laparoscopic surgery of unilateral adhesions or endometriosis stage 1-2 or after ablation of moderate-severe endometriosis in a second operation. In cases of bilateral tubal abnormalities revealed by HSG, bilateral pathology was confirmed by laparoscopy in at least 58 (46%) patients and they were advised to be treated by IVF after laparoscopy. The agreement between abnormalities found by HSG and abnormalities found by laparoscopy requiring IVF treatment was poor even when HSG showed bilateral pathology. Based on these findings, it is concluded that laparoscopy is mandatory after abnormal HSG findings in the work-up prior to IUI to prevent over-treatment with IVF.

Background: We questioned whether a laparoscopy should be performed after a normal hysterosalpingography before starting intrauterine inseminations (IUI) in order to detect further pelvic pathology and whether a postponed procedure after six unsuccessful cycles of IUI yields a higher number of abnormal findings., Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, the accuracy of a standard laparoscopy prior to IUI was compared with a laparoscopy performed after six unsuccessful cycles of IUI. The major end-point was the number of diagnostic laparoscopies revealing pelvic pathology with consequence for further treatment such as laparoscopic surgical intervention, IVF or secondary surgery. Patients were couples with medical grounds for IUI such as idiopathic subfertility, mild male infertility and cervical hostility., Results: Seventy-seven patients were randomized into the diagnostic laparoscopy first (DLSF) group and the same number was randomized into the IUI first (IUIF) group. The laparoscopy was performed on 64 patients in the DLSF group, 10 patients withdrew their consent from participation and three patients (3%) became pregnant prior to laparoscopy. In the IUIF group, 23 patients remained for laparoscopy because pregnancy did not occur after six cycles of IUI. From the original 77 randomized patients, 38 patients became pregnant and 16 patients dropped out. Abnormal findings during laparoscopy with therapeutic consequences were the same in both groups: in the DLSF group, 31 cases (48%) versus 13 cases (56%) in the IUIF group, P = 0.63; odds ratio (OR) = 1.4; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5-3.6. The ongoing pregnancy rate in the DLSF group was 34 out of 77 patients (44%) versus 38 out of 77 patients (49%) in the IUIF group (P = 0.63; OR = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-2.3)., Conclusions: Laparoscopy performed after six cycles of unsuccessful IUI did not detect more abnormalities with clinical consequences compared with those performed prior to IUI treatment. Our data suggest that the impact of the detection and the laparoscopic treatment of observed pelvic pathology prior to IUI seems negligible in terms of IUI outcome. Therefore, we seriously question the value of routinely performing a diagnostic and/or therapeutic laparoscopy prior to IUI treatment. Further prospective studies could be performed to determine the effect of laparoscopic interventions on the success rate of IUI treatment in order to rule out completely the laparoscopy from the diagnostic route prior to IUI.