[Comparison of fertiloscopy versus laparoscopy in the exploration of the infertility: analysis of the literature]

BACKGROUND: Fertiloscopy is a recent technique designed to explore the tubo-ovarian axis in unexplained infertility. It is a simple outpatient technique, allowing to perform operative procedures, but its position relative to laparoscopy is yet to be defined. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A thorough and extensive bibliographical search was undertaken to fully embrace the question, challenging Medline at the National Library of Medicine, Cochrane Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Health Technology Assessment Database. All the retrieved articles were classified as either descriptive or comparative studies and evaluated on a set of criteria. RESULTS: Most of the papers described case series coming from a few teams, focusing mainly on the technical aspect of the procedure, like the access rate to the posterior cul-de-sac, the success rate in visualizing the pelvis, the complications rate (mainly rectal perforation), and its operative performance in drilling ovaries for resistant polycystic ovarian syndrome. Comparative studies numbered six trials. They all followed the same design, fertiloscopy preceding conventional laparoscopy in patients taken as their own control. The concordance rate between the two modalities reaches 80% in terms of tubal pathology, adherences and endometriosis, with an estimated reduction of laparoscopies varying from 40% to 93%. CONCLUSION: The current literature shows a concordance between fertiloscopy and conventional laparoscopic findings for certain parameters in cases of tubal pathology, adherences and endometriosis. The relative positions of these two modalities in unexplained infertility still remain elusive.