Effect of Recurrence of Hydrosalpinx after Tubal Ligation on the Outcome of In vitro Fertilization Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of recurrent hydrosalpinx after proximal tubal ligation and distal salpingostomy on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven hundred and twenty-six patients with hydrosalpinx undergoing laparoscopic surgery before IVF were enrolled in the study. Five hundred and sixty-two patients treated with proximal tubal ligation and distal salpingostomy were included in Group A. One hundred and sixty-four cases managed with salpingectomy were grouped into Group B. Group A were further divided into two subgroups. One hundred and forty-six patients in Group A1 had a recurrence of hydrosalpinx. Four hundred and sixteen patients in Group A2 had no repetition of hydrosalpinx. We compared the pregnancy outcomes of their subsequent fresh embryo transfer cycles among the three groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences among the three groups in terms of age, body mass index (23.56 ± 3.27 vs. 23.13 ± 3.42 vs. 23.63 ± 3.73, P = 0.195), basal hormone level (7.03 ± 1.75 vs. 7.08 ± 2.26 vs. 7.44 ± 2.93, P = 0.195), antral follicle count (12.25 ± 5.92 vs. 12.63 ± 5.71 vs. 11.70 ± 4.98, P = 0.188), duration of gonadotropin (Gn) (11.19 ± 2.1 vs. 10.93 ± 1.84 vs. 10.79 ± 2.03, P = 0.182), consumption of Gn (2136.73 ± 855.65 vs. 1997.15 ± 724.72 vs. 2069.05±765.12 , P = 0.14), endometrial thickness (1.1 ± 0.27 vs. 1.1 ± 0.24 vs. 1.1 ± 0.17, P = 0.352), base follicle-stimulating hormone (6.21 ± 3.43 vs. 6.52 ± 3.20 vs. 5.89 ± 3.10, P = 0.1), number of embryos transferred (1.87 ± 0.36 vs. 1.83 ± 0.42 vs. 1.88 ± 0.37, P = 0.224), and number of high-grade embryos (3.77 ± 2.42 vs. 4.01 ± 2.72 vs. 4.17 ± 2.74, P = 0.41). No differences were detected in clinical pregnancy rate (50% vs. 54.8% vs. 50%, P = 0.439), the live birth rate (86.3% vs. 82.0% vs. 87.8%, P = 0.398), fertilization rate (64.1% vs. 64.4% vs. 64.7%, P = 0.928), and biochemical pregnancy rate (4% vs. 4.5% vs. 7%, P = 0.332) among the three groups. CONCLUSION: The recurrence of hydrosalpinx after tubal ligation does not affect the outcomes of IVF/ICSI. It is not necessary to worry about the effect of recurrent hydrosalpinx on pregnancy outcomes of IVF/ICSI that may due to the spread of inflammation through lymphatic circulation or blood circulation.