Experience with Diagnostic Laparoscopy in the Evaluation of Tubal Factor Infertility

John Jude Kweku Annan, Gerald Owusu Asubonteng, Thomas O. Konney
In: Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2020 · vol. 10(05) , pp. 688–697 · doi:10.4236/ojog.2020.1050062 · W3024258722
article OA: diamond CC0 ⤵ 2 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

Diagnostic laparoscopy in 391 infertile women revealed tubal blockages in 73.67% of cases and demonstrated a safe procedural profile with no mortality.

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

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-09 ⓘ

This retrospective descriptive study analyzed 391 infertility patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy with chromopertubation (methylene blue) at a tertiary endoscopic gynecology unit in Ghana between 2010 and 2019 to evaluate tubal factor infertility. The most common laparoscopic tubal findings were bilateral tubal occlusion (57.28%), unilateral tubal occlusion (16.39%), and hydrosalpinx (7.92%), with bilateral tubal patency in 18.41% of cases, alongside peritoneal adhesions (47.06%), peritoneal endometriosis (1.79%), uterine fibroids (51.67%), and adenomyosis (0.51%) among other findings; the study reported no mortality or conversion to open laparotomy and no recorded complications. A key limitation is that it excluded records with missing clinical or laparoscopic data and used a simple descriptive approach without controlled comparisons to other diagnostic modalities. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it reports peritoneal endometriosis and also notes endometrioma among laparoscopic findings in the evaluation of tubal factor infertility, which is relevant to endometriosis-related pelvic pathology.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Context and Objectives: Tubal factor infertility accounts for a large portion of female factor infertility. Tubal disease is responsible for 25% - 35% of female infertility. The most prevalent cause of tubal factor infertility is pelvic inflammatory disease and acute salpingitis. The incidence of tubal damage after one episode of pelvic infection is approximately 12%, 23% after two episodes and 54% after three episodes. Various modalities for investigating tubal factor infertility exist including: saline Infusion sonography (SIS), Hystero-contrast sonography (HyCoSy), hysterosalpingography (HSG) and laparoscopy with chromopertubation, the latter being the gold standard. The aim of this study was to determine the role of diagnostic laparoscopy in the evaluation of tubal factor in infertile women. Settings and Design: A retrospective descriptive study on all diagnostic laparoscopic procedures carried out to evaluate tubal factor infertility in the endoscopic gynecology unit of a tertiary-level hospital from 2010 to 2019. Methods: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of a tertiary-level hospital in Ghana. A total of three hundred and ninety-one (391) records of all diagnostic laparoscopy procedures performed because of infertility in the endoscopic gynecology unit of a tertiary-level hospital between 2010 and 2019 were analyzed. Clients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy to assess tubal factor infertility in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Directorate of Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH), Kumasi, from 2010 to 2019 were included in the study. Tubal patency was tested by laparoscopy and chromopertubation using methylene blue dye. The clinical characteristics of these women (age, parity, type of infertility), the intra-operative findings and complications were evaluated. Data on age, parity, type of infertility and intra operative findings were extracted using a proforma. Cases in which the bio-data or other clinical and laparoscopic findings were missing were excluded from the study. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Research and Development (R & D). A simple percentage method was used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 391 women underwent diagnostic laparoscopy for investigation of tubal factor infertility between 2010 and 2019. The women’s mean age was 33.16 years. The youngest patient was 20 years and the oldest was 46 years. 232 (59.3%) patients were in primary infertility group while 159 (40.7%) patients were in secondary infertility group. 265 (66.8%) of the women were in the age group 20 - 35 years. The main laparoscopic findings for tubal factor were: 57.28% with bilateral tubal occlusion, 16.39% with unilateral tubal occlusion and 7.92% with hydrosalpinx. 18.41% had bilateral tubal patency. Other findings were identified during the laparoscopic procedure. For peritoneal abnormalities, 200 (51.15%) had normal findings, 184 (47.06%) had adhesions and 7 (1.79%) had peritoneal endometriosis. For uterine factor, 185 (47.31%) had normal uterus with no fibroids or adenomyosis, 202 (51.67%) had uterine fibroids, 2 (0.51%) had uterine anomaly and 2 (0.51%) had adenomyosis. For ovarian pathology, 13 (3.32%) had simple cyst, 2 (0.51%) had endometrioma, 184 (47.07%) had the ovaries involved in adhesions. 192 (49.10%) of patients had normal looking ovaries. There was no mortality or conversion to open laparotomy in this series. Conclusions: Unilateral and bilateral tubal blockade was detected in 73.67% of cases of infertile women. Diagnostic laparoscopy is a safe procedure.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosisadenomyosisendometriomainfertility

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 (38)

Cited by (2)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK