https://doi.org/10.18502/ijrm.v19i10.9820
statistics
- 206 Abstract Views
- 98 PDF Views
- 0 HTML Views
- Cited by 2 articles
authors
-
Zahra Asgari
Zahra Asgari
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Arash Women’s Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
-
Venus Chegini
Venus Chegini
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran.
-
Reihaneh Hosseini
Reihaneh Hosseini
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Arash Women’s Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
-
Mina Mohajeri
Mina Mohajeri
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Arash Women’s Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
-
Iman Ansari
Iman Ansari
Medical Students Research Committee, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
Published Date
- Nov 4, 2021
Fertility outcomes subsequent to medical and surgical treatment for ectopic pregnancy: A retrospective cohort study in Iran
Abstract
Background: Ectopic pregnancy (EP) and its treatment methods may affect subsequent fertility outcomes.
Objective: To compare methotrexate (MTX), laparoscopic salpingostomy, and salpingectomy methods of EP treatment and their effects on fertility outcomes.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed on women receiving a definitive diagnosis of tubular EP from 2014 to 2017 at Arash Medical Center, Tehran, Iran. In total, 194 women were studied, of which 64 were treated with MTX, 52 underwent salpingostomy, and 78 underwent salpingectomy, depending on their clinical status. Basic information, obstetrics history, and major outcomes of the treatment after an 18-month follow-up, including recurrence of EP, miscarriage, and successful intrauterine pregnancy (IUP), were recorded and variables were compared among the three groups.
Results: There was no significant difference in fertility outcomes among the three groups. Among the studied variables, predictors of successful IUP after EP treatment were multiparity (Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.37; 95%CI: 1.06-1.77), no history of miscarriage (HR: 2.37; 95%CI: 1.01-5.56), and a higher number of live births (HR: 1.54; 95%CI: 1.01- 2.37). On the other hand, predictors of EP recurrence included nulliparity (HR: 1.61; 95%CI: 1.02-2.53) and a lower number of live births (HR: 3.84; 95%CI: 1.43-10.98). The effect of other factors, including the utilized therapeutic modalities, was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: The current study results demonstrated that after an 18-month follow-up, fertility outcomes, including recurrence of EP and successful IUP, were not significantly different among the subjects with EP treated with MTX, salpingostomy, or salpingectomy. Further studies with long-term follow-ups are recommended.
Key words: Ectopic pregnancy, Fertility, Methotrexate, Salpingostomy, Salpingectomy.
References
[2] Gaskins AJ, Missmer SA, Rich-Edwards JW, Williams PL, Souter I, Chavarro JE. Demographic, lifestyle, and reproductive risk factors for ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 1328–1337.
[3] Hasani M, Keramat A, Khosravi A, Oshrieh Z, Hasani M. [Prevalence of ectopic pregnancy in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis]. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2016; 19: 15–23. (in Persian)
[4] Mokhtari Zanjani P, Ahmadnia E, Kharaghani R. Ectopic pregnancy rate in Iranian midwifery clients and infertile patients treated by assisted reproductive technologies. J Evid Based Med 2019; 12: 56–62.
[5] Yong PJ, Matwani S, Brace Ch, Quaiattini A, Bedaiwy MA, Albert A, et al. Endometriosis and ectopic pregnancy: A meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2020; 27: 352– 361.
[6] Bouzari Z, Yazdani Sh, Alizadeh M, Ghanbarpour A, Bijani A, Lakaei F. The risk factors for cctopic pregnancy. J Babol Univ Med Sci 2019; 21: 166–173.
[7] Parashi S, Moukhah S, Ashrafi M. Main risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: A case-control study in a sample of Iranian women. Int J Fertil Steril 2014; 8: 147–154.
[8] Ting WH, Lin HH, Hsiao SM. Factors predicting persistent ectopic pregnancy after laparoscopic salpingostomy or salpingotomy for tubal pregnancy: A retrospective cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019; 26: 1036–1043.
[9] Kirk E, Bottomley C, Bourne T. Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy and current concepts in the management of pregnancy of unknown location. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20: 250–261.
[10] Pakniat H, Bahman A, Ansari I. The relationship of pregnancy-associated plasma protein A and human chorionic gonadotropin with adverse pregnancy outcomes: A prospective study. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2019; 69: 412–419.
[11] Helmy S, Sawyer E, Ofili-Yebovi D, Yazbek J, Ben Nagi J, Jurkovic D. Fertility outcomes following expectant management of tubal ectopic pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 988–993.
[12] Talarczyk-Desole J, Wróbel M, Niepsuj-Biniaś J, Szymanowski K, Opala T, Pawelczyk L, et al. Ectopic pregnancy: Which treatment method least affects fertility? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 198: 161–162.
[13] de Bennetot M, Rabischong B, Aublet-Cuvelier B, Belard F, Fernandez H, Bouyer J, et al. Fertility after tubal ectopic pregnancy: Results of a population-based study. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 1271–1276.
[14] Beall S, DeCherney AH. Management of tubal ectopic pregnancy: Methotrexate and salpingostomy are preferred to preserve fertility. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 1118–1120.
[15] Carusi D. Pregnancy of unknown location: Evaluation and management. Semin Perinatol 2019; 43: 95–100.
[16] Inal ZO, Inal HA. Comparison of four methods of treating ectopic pregnancy: A retrospective cohort study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2018; 78: 70–77.
[17] Yousefnezhad A, Pirdehghan A, Roshandel Rad M, Eskandari A, Ahmadi S. Comparison of the pregnancy outcomes between the medical and surgical treatments in tubal ectopi pregnancy. Int J Reprod Biomed 2018; 16: 31– 34.
[18] Lermann J, Segl P, Jud SM, Beckmann MW, Oppelt P, Thiel FC, et al. Low-dose methotrexate treatment in ectopic pregnancy: A retrospective analysis of 164 ectopic pregnancies treated between 2000 and 2008. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 289: 329–335.
[19] Lagana AS, Vitale SG, De Dominici R, Padula F, Rapisarda AM, Biondi A, et al. Fertility outcome after laparoscopic salpingostomy or salpingectomy for tubal ectopic pregnancy: A 12-years retrospective cohort study. Ann Ital Chir 2016; 87: 461–465.
[20] Ellaithy M, Asiri M, Rateb A, Altraigey A, Abdallah K. Prediction of recurrent ectopic pregnancy: A five-year follow-up cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 225: 70–78.
[21] Turan V. Fertility outcomes subsequent to treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy in younger Turkish women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2011; 24: 251–255.
[22] Zhang D, Shi W, Li C, Yuan JJ, Xia W, Xue RH, et al. Risk factors for recurrent ectopic pregnancy: A case-control study. BJOG 2016; 123 (Suppl.): 82–89.
[23] Jamard A, Turck M, Pham AD, 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) 2016; 45: 129–138. (in French)
[24] Fadhlaoui A, Oueslati H, Khedhiri Z, Khrouf M, Chaker A, Zhioua F. [Cost of medical treatment with methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy. Study comparing medical treatment versus laparoscopy: Experience of Aziza Othmana Hospital]. Tunis Med 2013; 91: 112–116. (in French)
[25] Ansong E, Illahi GS, Shen L, Wu X. Analyzing the clinical significance of postoperative methotrexate in the management of early abdominal pregnancy: Analysis of 10 cases. Ginekol Pol 2019; 90: 438–443.