Vandekerckhove P, Watson A, Lilford R, Harada T, Hughes E
Institute of Epidemiology, University of Leeds, 34 Hyde Terrace, Leeds, Yorkshire, UK, LS2 9LN.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;1996(2):CD000092. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000092.
There has been debate in the literature for more than 40 years as to whether flushing of the Fallopian tubes enhances fertility and whether this presumed therapeutic effect is greater with oil-soluble media than with water-soluble media. A meta-analysis of the therapeutic role of oil-soluble contrast media at hysterosalpingography was published in March 1994 (Watson 1994). This Cochrane Review is an expansion and update of that overview.
To evaluate the effect of flushing the Fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on subsequent pregnancy rates in infertility patients.
Six RCTs and six non-randomised controlled studies. In two studies tubal flushing was compared with no treatment-controls. Eleven studies, comprising a total of 2635 subjects, compared oil- with water-soluble media.
Independently by first 2 authors for: 1. Methodological trial characteristics 2. Characteristics of participants 3.
the main studied outcome was pregnancy rate per patient
In comparison with no treatment, a significant benefit on pregnancy rates was seen by flushing the tubes with oil-soluble media (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.29-2.50) but not with water-soluble media (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.50-1.52). In the direct comparison of oil- and water-soluble media the former lead to significantly higher pregnancy rates (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.60-2.29). The treatment effect appeared similar in RCTs and non-RCTs. Subgroup analysis suggested the therapeutic benefit was greatest for patients suffering from unexplained infertility and least for those with tubal factor infertility.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Flushing of the tubes with oil-soluble media increases subsequent pregnancy rates in infertility patients. The hypothesis that tubal "plugs" are a cause of proximal tubal occlusion and that oil-soluble media may flush them out, is supported by new techniques such as falloposcopy. Clinicians should consider flushing the tubes with OSCM before contemplating more invasive therapies.
40多年来,关于输卵管冲洗是否能提高生育能力以及这种假定的治疗效果在油溶性介质中是否比水溶性介质中更显著,文献中一直存在争议。1994年3月发表了一项关于油溶性造影剂在子宫输卵管造影术中治疗作用的荟萃分析(沃森,1994年)。本Cochrane系统评价是该综述的扩展和更新。
评估用油溶性或水溶性造影剂冲洗输卵管对不孕患者后续妊娠率的影响。
6项RCT和6项非随机对照研究。在两项研究中,将输卵管冲洗与未治疗对照组进行了比较。11项研究,共2635名受试者,比较了油溶性介质与水溶性介质。
由前两位作者独立进行:1. 试验方法学特征2. 参与者特征3.
主要研究结果是每位患者的妊娠率
与未治疗相比,用油溶性介质冲洗输卵管对妊娠率有显著益处(OR 1.80,95%CI 1.29 - 2.50),但用水溶性介质冲洗则没有(OR 0.87,95%CI 0.50 - 1.52)。在油溶性介质和水溶性介质的直接比较中,前者导致显著更高的妊娠率(OR 1.92,95%CI 1.60 - 2.29)。RCT和非RCT中的治疗效果似乎相似。亚组分析表明,治疗益处对于不明原因不孕患者最大,对于输卵管因素不孕患者最小。
用油溶性介质冲洗输卵管可提高不孕患者的后续妊娠率。输卵管“堵塞”是近端输卵管阻塞的原因且油溶性介质可能将其冲开这一假说,得到了输卵管镜检查等新技术的支持。临床医生在考虑更具侵入性的治疗之前,应考虑用油溶性造影剂冲洗输卵管。