Histology of proximal tubal obstruction in cases of unsuccessful tubal canalization
Letterie GS , Sakas EL
Read at source Licensecopyrighted (journal scan; not open access)
Abstract
Objective
To determine possible etiologies of unsuccessful fluoroscopically guided tubal canalization, we studied the histology of tubal segments in cases of failed canalization for proximal tubal obstruction. Factors contributing to cases of unsuccessful fluoroscopically guided tubal canalization remain unclear.
Design
Prospective.
Setting
Reproductive Endocrinology Clinic.
MATERIALS: Twenty-seven cornual and/or isthmic tubal segments from 15 patients who underwent proximal tubal surgery after fluoroscopically guided tubal canalization were studied. Specimens were prepared with hemotoxylin-eosin and Masson trichrome stains.
Results
Histologic examination of excised cornual and isthmic tubal segments revealed abnormalities in 93% of specimens. Obliterative fibrosis (61%), chronic salpingitis (57%), and salpingitis isthmica nodosa (42%) were the most commonly found histologic tubal abnormalities. One case of complete tubal occlusion and tubal schistosomiasis was also detected.
Conclusions
These data suggest that cases of failed fluoroscopically guided tubal canalization may be secondary to severe intrinsic tubal disease and tubal occlusion and not to the technique. Fluoroscopically guided tubal canalization may provide a means of differentiating a functional obstruction amenable to conservative management from true occlusion requiring management by microsurgical techniques or in vitro fertilization.
Letterie, G. S., & Sakas, E. L. (1991). Histology of proximal tubal obstruction in cases of unsuccessful tubal canalization. Fertility and sterility, 56(5), 831-835.
Letterie GS, Sakas EL. Histology of proximal tubal obstruction in cases of unsuccessful tubal canalization. Fertil Steril. 1991;56(5):831-835.
Letterie, G. S., and E. L. Sakas. "Histology of proximal tubal obstruction in cases of unsuccessful tubal canalization." Fertility and sterility, vol. 56, no. 5, 1991, pp. 831-835.
To review the physiology, pathology, and treatment of proximal tubal disease. Relevant reports on the pathophysiology of proximal tubal disease were reviewed. All studies in English of microsurgery and macrosurgery, and of radiographic and hysteroscopic cannulation in women with proximal tubal blockage were identified through MEDLINE searches. All studies of therapy for proximal blockage that included pregnancy rates were considered. Series of sterilization reversals, series of unilateral or combined procedures, and series in which the location of tubal blockage was not given were excluded from the data analyses. Raw data were assessed for homogeneity, then standardized and pooled. Total and ongoing pregnancy rates after microsurgery and macrosurgery, as well as radiographic and hysteroscopic transcervical cannulation, were compared by the chi2 test. Relative risks for total and ongoing pregnancies were calculated for all treatment methods. RESULT(S): This meta-analysis suggests that, overall, microsurgical anastomosis results in higher total and ongoing pregnancy rates than macrosurgery or radiographic tubal cannulation. However, pregnancy rates in selected series of transcervical tubal cannulation are similar to those reported for microsurgery. CONCLUSION(S): Ongoing intrauterine pregnancy rates near 50% can be achieved in patients with proximal blockage of the fallopian tube. Selective salpingography and transcervical cannulation under fluoroscopic guidance are effective at establishing patency in appropriately selected patients and are less invasive and costly than the surgical alternatives.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2026·Fertility and Sterility
Current strategies for the assessment and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss are discussed. This replaces the previous document, titled, "Evaluation and treatment a committee opinion," last published in 2012.
This narrative review examines the evidence for medical optimization of inflammatory conditions, vitamin deficiencies, endocrine disorders, immune dysregulation, oligo-ovulation, and luteal phase factors to improve fertility outcomes in women attempting to conceive through natural or timed intercourse. Overall, there is a paucity of data with respect to these categories among patients pursuing timed intercourse, precluding our ability to draw strong recommendations. However, there is strong evidence supporting treatment of endocrine disorders, specifically overt thyroid dysfunction and hyperprolactinemia, as well as oligo-ovulation. Conversely, treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism is not recommended. The current data are insufficient to support empiric use of antiinflammatory medications, corticosteroids, thyroid hormones, or vitamins or supplements to improve chances of pregnancy in a general infertility population.
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.