Page 306 - EJMO-9-3

Eurasian Journal of
Medicine and Oncology Mini-laparotomy tubal reanastomosis outcomes

pregnancy is a significant consideration that must not be Author contributions
overlooked during counseling. The literature reported
varying rates for this complication, ranging from 2% to Conceptualization: Dilay Gök Korucu, Şükran Doğru
7%. For example, Karayalcin et al. observed an ectopic Data curation: Dilay Gök Korucu
20
pregnancy rate of 3.7%, whereas Barac et al. reported a Methodology: Dilay Gök Korucu, Şükran Doğru
21
higher incidence of 8.53%. This risk may also be influenced Writing–original draft: Dilay Gök Korucu
21
by surgical factors, with Barac et al. noting a significantly Writing–review & editing: Esra Koşucu, Şükran Doğru,
higher incidence when anastomosis was performed closer Oğuzhan Günenç
to the fimbrial end of the tube. A notable limitation of the Ethics approval and consent to participate
present study is the inability to track ectopic pregnancy
rates. Due to the retrospective design, comprehensive This study was conducted with the approval of the Konya
follow-up on pregnancies that did not result in live births City Hospital Local Committee (Date: 06.03.2025; number:
at our institution, including potential ectopic pregnancies, 09-58). Patients provided verbal and written consent to
was unavailable. Therefore, although acknowledging this participate in this study.
well-documented risk from the literature, the present
study cannot contribute data on this complication, which Consent for publication
should be considered a limitation. Patients provided verbal and written consent for
This study has other limitations. First, the conclusion is publication on registration into our hospital.
based on a relatively small sample size of 23 patients, limiting Availability of data
the generalizability of the findings to a broader population.
Second, being a retrospective study, the findings are subject Data are available from the corresponding author on
to potential biases related to data collection and selection. request.
Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and
allow for more controlled assessments of outcome variables. References
Third, without a comparison group, such as patients 1. Stuart GS, Ramesh SS. Interval female sterilization. Obstet
undergoing alternative surgical techniques or IVF, it is Gynecol. 2018;131(1):117-124.
challenging to directly attribute observed outcomes solely to doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002376.
macroscopic tubal reanastomosis through mini-laparotomy. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center
Finally, although the study focuses on mini-laparotomy, for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition
variations in surgical technique and surgeon experience Examination Survey Questionnaire (or Examination Protocol,
were not controlled, which may have influenced the results. or Laboratory Protocol); 2006. Available from: https://www.

5. Conclusion cdc.gov [Last accessed on 2025 Jul 01].
3. Salehjawich A, Günther V, Ruchay Z, et al. Robot-assisted
Macroscopic tubal reanastomosis through mini-laparotomy tubal reanastomosis after sterilization: A choice for family
was successful in 78.2% patients, with an overall post- planning. J Clin Med. 2022;11(15):4385.
reversal pregnancy rate of 43.5% and a mean time to achieve doi: 10.3390/jcm11154385
pregnancy of 3.73 ± 5.29 months. Although the pregnancy
rate achieved in this study is lower than that reported in the 4. Godin PA, Syrios K, Rege G, Demir S, Charitidou E, Wery O.
literature, it is still considered acceptable. Therefore, this Laparoscopic reversal of tubal sterilization; a retrospective
approach can be recommended as an alternative method study over 135 cases. Front Surg. 2018;5:79.
for surgeons lacking extensive experience in laparoscopic doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00079
microsurgery for tubal reanastomosis. 5. Practice Committee of the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: ASRM@
Acknowledgments asrm.org 1. Role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted
None. reproductive technology: A committee opinion. Fertil Steril.
2021;115(5):1143-1150.
Funding doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.01.051
None. 6. Moon HS, Joo BS, Kim SG, Nam KI, Koo JS. Where microsurgical
tubal reanastomosis stands in the in vitro fertilization era.
Conflict of interest Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2024;13(2):71-78.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. doi: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_43_23

Volume 9 Issue 3 (2025) 298 doi: 10.36922/EJMO025150111