Infertility laparoscopy in perspective: Review of five hundred cases

John R. Musich, J R Musich, Musich JR, Behrman SJ, S J Behrman
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 1982 · vol. 143(3) , pp. 293–303 · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(82)90818-3 · PMID:6211097 · W1877628336
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 17 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This review analyzes five hundred cases of infertility laparoscopy to provide perspective on the procedure's outcomes and applications.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

The review of a 3-year, 500-case experience has revealed a marked change in the indications for infertility laparoscopy that has evolved over the past decade. In cases of unexplained infertility, 44% of 182 laparoscopies disclosed unsuspected pelvic abnormalities; 72% of 106 patients who had previously undergone various pelvic surgical procedures had abnormal postoperative tubal sequelae; 37% of abnormal hysterosalpingograms were found to be misdiagnoses; 25% of 65 evaluations for consideration of reversal of tubal sterilization found inoperable tubal remnants; and 80% of 54 patients who had had a previous diagnosis of, and treatment for, endometriosis had residual endometriosis and/or tubal factors. No laparoscopies were done to evaluate ovulatory disturbances. The indications and findings in this large series allow the authors to offer guidelines for the timing of laparoscopy in the evaluation of infertile women.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosisinfertility

MeSH descriptors

Infertility, Female Laparoscopy Adult Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Humans Hysterosalpingography Infertility, Female Middle Aged Postoperative Complications Postoperative Complications Sterilization Reversal Sterilization, Tubal Uterine Neoplasms Uterine Neoplasms

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (22)

Cited by (16)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-30T09:23:35.175841+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:10:00.881616+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-08-30T06:25:36.955031+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK