XXXX and tubal pathology--not all bad news.

@entity52 @entity1 @entity249 @entity66
OBJECTIVES: In light of evidence that hydrosalpinges compromise the chance of success of @entity52 ( @entity52 ), the aim of this study was to analyse the results of @entity52 treatment at our clinic in relation to the cause for @entity249 and to make inferences concerning the impact of mild @entity66 on @entity52 outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING Tertiary fertility clinic in New Zealand. POPULATION: Nine hundred and six consecutive cycles among 639 couples receiving @entity52 treatment in the six-year period 1995-2000 inclusive. METHODS: Data extraction from the clinic database. RESULTS: The clinical pregnancy rate of 17.5% per ovarian stimulation cycle and 23.9% per embryo transfer for the cycles of couples with @entity66 as the only cause for @entity249 was not significantly different from the clinical pregnancy rate of 15.4% per ovarian stimulation cycle and 24.1% per embryo transfer for all other couples undergoing @entity52 . In the cycles of @entity1 with @entity66 , the clinical pregnancy rate of 6.6% per ovarian stimulation cycle where other causes for @entity249 were also present, was significantly lower than the clinical pregnancy rate of 17.5% where tubal factor alone was present. In the cycles of couples with multiple causes for @entity249 , where the overall pregnancy rate was 10.9% per ovarian stimulation cycle, there was no significant difference in pregnancy rate between those whose multiple causes included @entity66 (6.6% per ovarian stimulation cycle) and those whose multiple causes did not include @entity66 (17.5% per ovarian stimulation cycle). CONCLUSION: The overall population of @entity1 with @entity66 as the sole cause for @entity249 (including @entity1 with hydrosalpinges and those with @entity66 ) does not have an overall reduced likelihood of success at @entity52 . This suggests that @entity66 does not compromise the chance of success from @entity52 . Surgical treatment prior to @entity52 for the milder forms of @entity66 is not warranted.
