Adhesions and Infertility

In: Pelvic Surgery · 1997 · pp. 126–135 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1864-7_12 · W405976076
book-chapter OA: closed CC0
Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View at publisher
AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite+body, 2026-06-11

Pelvic adhesions contribute to infertility, bowel obstruction, and pain, with tubal factor infertility accounting for 40% of female infertility cases due to damage from infection, endometriosis, or surgery.

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, 2026-06-11 · read from full text

This paper discusses how pelvic adhesions contribute to bowel obstruction, pelvic pain, and especially tubal factor infertility, noting that identifiable causes include endometriosis-related adhesions and postsurgical adhesion formation. It also provides U.S. context for adhesiolysis, citing hospitalizations in 1988 and associated costs. A major limitation is that, as presented here, it functions as a narrative overview/chapter rather than reporting new prospective data, and it does not delineate study-specific methods or outcomes for its own claims. Relevance to endometriosis: the paper explicitly mentions endometriosis-related adhesions as a cause of tubal infertility, though the chapter’s main focus is the broader role of pelvic adhesions in infertility and the context of adhesiolysis.

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

Full text 7,542 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 3 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Pelvic adhesions may be the cause of bowel obstruction, pelvic pain, and infertility. Tubal factor infertility accounts for approximately 40% of the cases of female infertility.1 Identifiable causes of tubal infertility are postinfectious tubal damage, endometriosis-related adhesions, and postsurgical adhesion formation. In 1988 in the United States there were 281,982 hospitalizations to perform adhesiolysis, accounting for 948,727 days of inpatient care. The estimated costs associated with hospitalization for adhesiolysis are $1.18 billion—$925 million in hospital costs and $255 million in surgeons’ fees.2 Preview Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF. Similar content being viewed by others

References

Westrom L. Incidence, prevalence, and trends of acute pelvic inflammatory disease and its consequences in industrialized countries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980; 138: 880–892. Fox Ray N, Larsen JW, Stillman RJ, et al. Economic impact of hospitalizations for lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in 1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993; 176: 271–276. Caspi E, Halperin Y, Bukovsky I. The importance of periadnexal adhesions in tubal reconstructive surgery for infertility. Fertil Steril. 1979; 31: 296–300. Hulka 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. Hulka JF, Omran K, Berger GS. Classification of adnexal adhesions: a proposal and evaluation of its prognostic significance. Fertil Steril. 1978; 30: 661–665. Rock JA, Katayama KP, Martin EJ, Woodruff JD, Jones HW Jr. Factors influencing the success of salpingostomy techniques for distal fimbrial occlusion. Obstet Gynecol. 1978; 52: 591–596. Boer-Meisel ME, te Velde ER, Habbema JDF, Kardaun JWPF. Predicting the pregnancy outcome in patients treated for hydrosalpinx: a prospective study. Fertil Steril. 1986; 45: 23–28. Mage G, Pouly JL, de Joliniere JB, Chabrand S, Riouallon A, Bruhat MA. A preoperative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rate after distal tubal microsurgery. Fertil Steril. 1986; 46: 807–810. The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988; 49: 944–955. Marana R, Rizzi M, Muzii L, Catalano GF, Caruana P, Mancuso S. Correlation between the American Fertility Society classification of adnexal adhesions and distal tubal occlusion, salpingoscopy, and reproductive outcome in tubal surgery. Fertil Steril. 1995; 64: 924–929. Puttemans P, Brosens IA, Delattin PH, Vasquez G, Boeckx W. Salpingoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod. 1987; 2: 535–540. Gomel V. Classification of operations for tubal and peritoneal factors causing infertility. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1980; 23: 1259–1260. Gomel V. Salpingostomy by microsurgery. Fertil Steril. 1978; 29: 380–387. Gomel V, Taylor P, Yuzpe AA, Rioux JE. Laparoscopy and Hysteroscapy in Gynecologic Practice. Chicago: Year Book Medical, 1986. Nezhat CR, Nezhat FR, Luciano AA, Siegler AM, Metzger DA, Nezhat CH. Operative Gynecologic Laparoscopy. Principles and Techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995. Bruhat MA, Mage G, Manhes H. Use of the CO2 laser via laparoscopy. In: Kaplan I, ed. Laser Surgery, vol. 3 Tel Aviv: International Society for Laser Surgery; 1979: 274–276. Henry-Suchet J, Loffredo V, Tesquier L, Pez J. Endoscopy of the tube (=tuboscopy): its prognostic value for tuboplasties. Acta Eur Fertil. 1985; 16: 139–145. De Bruyne F, Puttemans P, Boeckx W, Brosens IA. The clinical value of salpingoscopy in tubal infertility. Fertil Steril. 1989; 51: 339–340. Bowman MC, Cooke ID. Comparison of fallopian tube intraluminal pathology as assessed by salpingoscopy with pelvic adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1994; 61: 464–469. Kerin JF, Williams DB, San Roman GA, Pearlstone AC, Grundfest WS, Surrey ES. Falloposcopic classification and treatment of fallopian tube lumen disease. Fertil Steril. 1992; 57: 731–741. Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Morice P, Aubriot FX, Foulot H, Bouquet de Joliniere J. Laparoscopic salpingostomy: fertility results according to the tubal mucosa appearance. Hum Reprod. 1994; 9: 334–339. Strandell A, Bryman I, Janson PO, Thorburn J. Background factors and scoring systems in relation to pregnancy outcome after fertility surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1995; 74: 281–287. Vasquez G, Boeckx W, Brosens I. Prospective study of tubal mucosal lesions and fertility in hydrosalpinges. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10: 1075–1078. Vasquez G, Boeckx W, Brosens I. No correlation between peritubal and mucosal adhesions in hydrosalpinges. Fertil Steril. 1995; 64: 1032–1033. Heylen SM, Brosens IA, Puttemans PJ. Clinical value and cumulative pregnancy rates following rigid salpingoscopy during laparoscopy for infertility. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10: 2913–2916. Marana R, Muzii L, Rizzi M, Muscatello P, Dell’Acqua S, Mancuso S. Salpingoscopy in patients with endometriosis-associated infertility. Acta Eur Fertil. 1990; 21: 247–249. Nezhat F, Winer WK, Nezhat C. Fimbrioscopy and salpingoscopy in patients with minimal to moderate pelvic endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 75: 15–17. Saravelos LG, Tin-Chiu L, Cooke ID. An analysis of the outcome of microsurgical and laparoscopic adhesiolysis for infertility. Hum Reprod. 1995, 10: 2887–2894. Marana R, Muzii L, Rizzi M, Lucisano A, Dell’Acqua S, Mancuso S. Salpingoscopy in patients with contralateral ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1991; 55: 838–840. Marana R, Muzii L, Rizzi M, Dell’Acqua S, Mancuso S. Prognostic role of laparoscopic salpingoscopy of the only remaining tube after contralateral ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1995; 63: 303–306. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology—American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1993 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine—Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1995; 64: 13–21. Guzick DS, Wilkes C, Jones HW. Cumulative pregnancy rates for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1986; 46: 663–667. Tan SL, Royston P, Campbell S, et al. Cumulative conception and livebirth rates after in vitro fertilisation. Lancet. 1992; 339: 1390–1394. Gomel V. From microsurgery to laparoscopic surgery: a progress. Fertil Steril. 1995; 63: 464–468. Gomel V, Erenus M. The American Fertility Society, 16th Annual Meeting. Program supplement (Abstracts) P-097, S-106, 1990. Editor information Editors and Affiliations Rights and permissions Copyright information © 1997 Springer Science+Business Media New York About this chapter Cite this chapter Marana, R., Rizzi, M., Muzii, L. (1997). Adhesions and Infertility. In: diZerega, G.S., et al. Pelvic Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1864-7_12 Download citation DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1864-7_12 Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-7316-5 Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-1864-7 eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Keywords

- Pregnancy Rate - Pelvic Adhesion - American Fertility Society - Cumulative Pregnancy Rate - Tubal Factor Infertility These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

infertility

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cites (4)

References (37)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK