{"paper_id":"b3469d85-2d26-4a65-ac37-40c103d7ea02","body_text":"Abstract\nPurpose: This study evaluated the efficacy of the salpingoscopic scoring system of tubal function.\nMethods: Twenty-seven infertile patients, including 10 patients with proximal tubal occlusion, 12 with endometriosis and 5 with inflammatory hydrosalpinx, were studied. All 54 tubes were examined using a 0.5-mm-diameter salpingoscope and scored.\nResults: The mean scores for patients with proximal tubal occlusion, endometriosis, and inflammation were 18.6 ± 2.0, 15.6 ± 0.7, and 20.8 ± 3.4, respectively. Eight patients (29.6 %) conceived; their mean tubal score was 12.6 ± 0.5 (12–16). Nineteen patients did not conceive, and their mean score was 18.8 ± 1.4 (12–31). There was a significant difference between these two scores (P < 0.001).\nConclusions: Scoring of the tubes by salpingoscopic examination is useful for evaluating tubal function with regard to prediction of pregnancy and also for selecting IVF or tubal reconstructive surgery as the preliminary treatment.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nREFERENCES\nWestrom L: Incidence, prevalence and trends of acute pelvic inflammatory disease and its consequences in industrialized countries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;138:880–892\nAmerican Fertility Society: The American Fertility Society classifications on adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies, and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988;49:944–955\nKerin J, Williams D, San Roman G, Pearlstone A, Grundfest W, Surrey E: Falloposcopic classification and treatment of fallopian tube disease. Fertil Steril 1992;57:731–741\nMage G, Pouly J-L, de Joliniere JB, Chabrand S, Riouallon A, Bruhat MA: A preoperative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates after distal tubal microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1986;46:807–810\nHulka JF: Adnexal adhesions. A prognostic staging and classification system based on a five-year survey of fertility surgery results at Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:141–148\nSurrey ES, Surrey MW: Correlation between salpingoscopic and laparoscopic staging in the assessment of the distal fallopian tube. Fertil Steril 1996;65:267–271\nBowman MC, Cooke ID: Comparison of fallopian tube intraluminal pathology as assessed by salpingoscopy with pelvic adhesions. Fertil Steril 1994;61:464–469\nDubuisson J, Chapron C, Morice P, Aubriot F, Foulot H, de Joliniere J: Laparoscopic salpingostomy. Fertility results according to the tubal mucosal appearance. Hum Reprod 1994;9:334–339\nScudamore I, Dunphy B, Bowman M, Jenkins J, Cooke I: Comparison of ampullay assessment by falloposcopy and salpingoscopy. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1516–1518\nHerschlag A, Seifer D, Carcangiu M, Patton D, Diamond M, DeCherney A: Salpingoscopy. Light microscopic and electron microscopic correlations. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:399–405\nKawakami S: Disorder of ciliated cells in endosalpinx and fertility. J Clin Electron Microsc 1987;20:5–8\nMarana R, Catalano GF, Rizz M, Camana P, Muzu L, Mancuso S: Correlation between the American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesion and distal tubal occlusion, salpingoscopy, and reproductive outcome in tubal surgery. Fertil Steril 1995;64:924–929\nGomel V, Taylor PJ: In vitro fertilization versus reconstructive tubal surgery. J Assist Reprod Genet 1992;9:306–309\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nSawada, T., Tsukada, K., Satoh, M. et al. Correlation Between Salpingoscopic Score and Subsequent Pregnancy Outcome in Patients with Tubal Infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 14, 562–565 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022572432753\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022572432753","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}