ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2026
Effect of the timing of surgical treatment of hydrosalpinx on in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic single-sperm injection pregnancy outcomes in patients with tubal factor infertility.
Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we aimed to explore the effect of the timing of surgical management of hydrosalpinx on in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic single-sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) pregnancy outcomes in patients with tubal factor infertility.
methodsThis retrospective study included 377 patients who underwent laparoscopic (LAP) unilateral or bilateral salpingectomy due to hydrosalpinx, IVF/ICSI-embryo transfer (ET), or frozen ET (FET) at the Department of Reproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, between June 2013 and April 2023. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent oocyte retrieval first, followed by LAP, and FET (Group A, n = 190) and those who underwent LAP first, followed by oocyte retrieval, and ET/FET (Group B, n = 187). According to age, patients were divided into groups A1 ( < 35 years, n = 136), A2 (≥35 years, n = 54), B1 ( < 35 years, n = 153), and B2 (≥35 years, n = 34). According to the different ET times after LAP, patients were further divided into two groups: those who underwent ET ≤ 3 months after LAP (n = 193), and > 3 months after LAP (n = 184). According to the different oocyte retrieval times after LAP, the patients in group B (n = 187) were further divided into two groups: those who underwent oocyte retrieval ≤ 3 months after LAP (n = 83) and > 3 months after LAP (n = 104). We compared the pregnancy outcomes, complications after oocyte retrieval, oocyte contamination, and time and economic costs between the groups.
resultsThe differences in clinical pregnancy, live birth rates (57.9% vs 64.7%)[OR 0.750(0.495,1.137), p = 0.715; OR 0.841(0.445,1.591), p = 0.595], early abortion rates (4.5% vs 11.6%)[OR 0.364(0.127,1.046), p = 0.061; OR 0.320(0.074,1.379), p = 0.126], live birth rates(52.1% vs 52.9%)[OR 0.967(0.645,1.449), p = 0.871; OR 1.023(0.551,1.900), p = 0.941] between the two groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). A significantly higher time and economic costs were observed in Group A than in Group B (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe IVF/ICSI pregnancy outcomes were similar among patients with different timing of surgery. Group B spent less time and economic costs and had a lower risk of complications after oocyte retrieval than Group A. The optimal ET time after LAP was not reflected. the early abortion rates in the group that underwent ET ≤ 3 months after LAP showed a downward trend. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.