Abstract
Background:
More than 3 decades after the introduction of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and despite the improved success rates of assisted reproductive technologies, the argument for performing laparoscopy as a part of the infertility workup still stands.
Objective:
To evaluate the role of laparoscopy±hysteroscopy in diagnosis and management of infertility in our setting in view of modern fertility practice.
Materials and Methods:
This case control study was carried out on 600 infertile women subjected to laparoscopy or combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy at endoscopy unit in Minia University Hospital, Egypt during the period from January 2012 to December 2014.
Results:
The causes of infertility as identified by laparoscopy±hysteroscopy were polycystic ovary syndrome (25.1%), tubal factor (30%), uterine cause (4%), and endometriosis (2.7%). No cause was identified in 38.2% of cases. Based on operative findings, women were treated with different options. Expectant management was used in 92 cases (15.3%). Ovulation induction with anti-estrogens or gonadotropins was used in 372 cases (62%). Sixty cases (10%) had intrauterine insemination and sixty four cases (10.7%) underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) / intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. Within 1 yr after laparoscopy, 180 cases achieved pregnancy (30%). The most favorable outcome was recorded in women with unexplained infertility (36.7% of cases got pregnant) followed by women with polycystic ovary syndrome (27.8%). Participants with uterine and tubal infertility factor achieved pregnancy in 25% and 22.8% of cases, respectively. The worst outcome was recorded in women with endometriosis.
Conclusion:
Laparoscopy still has an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of infertility.
Key Words: Infertility, Laparoscopy, Hysteroscopy
Introduction
Infertility is defined as failure to conceive after 24 months of regular unprotected sexual intercourse in the absence of known reproductive pathology (1). It is prevalent as one in seven couples (2-9). Infertility is not just a medical problem, but many of those failing to conceive deal with medical, psychological and financial stresses related to their condition (10). More than 3 decades after the introduction of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and despite the improved success rates of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), the argument for performing laparoscopy as a part of the infertility workup still stands (11). It is agreed that the use of laparoscopy in women with decreased ovarian reserve or severe male factor infertility offers no benefit since the main treatment will remain IVF. The major controversy remains in women with endometriosis, tubal adhesions, history of tubal sterilisation, and uterine fibroids distorting the uterine cavity (12). Unexplained infertility remains a challenge in diagnosis and management even after the introduction of IVF technology. It is well known that patency of the fallopian tubes by hysterosalpingogram (HSG) does not rule out pelvic adhesions that can only be diagnosed by laparoscopy. It is debatable whether laparoscopy should be a mandatory step in sub-fertility workup after HSG (13).
Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are resistant to clomiphene citrate constitute a patients' group in whom performing laparoscopy and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) could be a smart treatment option provided that they have good ovarian reserve (Anti-mullerian hormone level >5 ng/ml is agreed by many gynecologists). This option have the advantage of improving the hormonal milieu, inducing mono-follicular growth, avoiding the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and minimizing the rate of multiple pregnancy; the risks associated with gonadotropin stimulation (14). Women with mild (minimal) endometriosis may not be diagnosed till diagnostic laparoscopy is performed. Treatment of endometriotic lesions laparoscopically with excision or fulguration is associated with increased pregnancy rates after laparoscopy (15, 16).
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopy to verify causes and management of infertility in our setup.
Materials and methods
In this case control study, the medical records of 600 infertile women who were referred to endoscopy unit of Minia University Hospital, Minia, Egypt for laparoscopy or combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy from January 2012 to December 2014 were reviewed. These women were admitted to the infertility clinic of Minia University Hospital. We tried to approach all women who fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the study through telephone calls. We initially approached 984 women and we got full data from 600 participants who were included in the analysis. The study flowchart is shown in figure 1.
Figure 1.
Study flow chart
All data were collected from the Gynecology database which contains data collected from all women undergoing any surgical gynecological procedure in the department. The participants’ files (case notes) were also revised to double check the accuracy of the data registered in the database.
Our inclusion criteria were: infertile women aged between 18 and 40 yr, anovulation due to PCOS, history of tubal factor infertility for example history of previous pelvic operation, history of previous appendectomy, history of puerperal sepsis, or abnormal HSG, history of endometriosis for example dyspareunia, dysmenorrhea or deep pelvic pain, also unexplained infertility. The exclusion criteria were couples with male factor infertility (abnormal semen parameters and/or sexual dysfunctions), women with history of previous laparoscopy, premature ovarian failure, follice stimulating hormone (FSH) <12 IU/L, antral follicle count (AFC) >5, and anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) >0.1 ng/ml.”
Follow up
One yr after laparoscopy, participants were contacted by telephone and asked about the occurrence of pregnancy. Women who got pregnant were asked whether pregnancy was achieved spontaneously, through induction of ovulation, or through ART? They were also asked about the duration interval between laparoscopy and pregnancy, gestational age and pregnancy period. They were also invited to attend the hospital antenatal care clinic for follow up. Participants who didn’t get pregnant were invited to attend the fertility clinic to discuss further steps like the need for ART.
Ethical consideration
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the institutional review board of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine in Minia University (MUH 7982). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Statistical analysis
Data were statistically described in terms of mean±SD (standard deviation) and range for quantitative data, or frequencies and percentages for categorical data. Comparison of age and duration of infertility between primary and secondary infertility cases was done using Student’s t-test for independent samples. Agreement between HSG and laparoscopy results was measured using Kappa statistic. p-values less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical calculations were done using computer programs SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) version 21 for Microsoft Windows.
Results
The study included 600 women who underwent laparoscopy ± hysteroscopy during the study period. The participants' characteristics and pre-operative management are summarized in table I. The causes of infertility as identified by laparoscopy±hysteroscopy were PCOS (25.1%), tubal factor (30%), uterine cause (4%), and endometriosis (2.7%). No cause was identified in 38.2% of cases. Infertility was primary in 344 women and secondary in 256 women. The distribution of the causes of infertility stratified by the type shown in table II. The laparoscopic and hysteroscopic findings in the study population are shown in table III. Different procedures were performed during laparoscopy. LOD for PCO was performed in 152 (25.3%), lysis of intra-peritoneal adhesions in 68 (11.3%), tuboplasty 72 (12%), and ovarian cystectomy in 64 (10.7%), excision of uterine fibroids in 8 (1.3 %), and removal or disconnection of hydrosalpinx in 16 (2.7%) women. Diagnostic laparoscopy was done in 248 cases (41.3%). Operative laparoscopy was performed in 352 cases (58.7%). The total number of women underwent hysteroscopy was 116 cases (19.3%).
Table I.
Participants' characteristics and pre-operative management (n= 600)
| Participants' characteristics | Mean ± SD (range) or n (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age* | 26.1 ± 4.3 (18 – 38) | |
| Parity# | ||
| 0 | 416 (69.4) | |
| 1 | 108 (18) | |
| 2 | 68 (11.3) | |
| ≥ 3 | 8 (1.3) | |
| Type of infertility # | ||
| Primary | 344 (57.3) | |
| Secondary | 256 (42.7) | |
| Duration of infertility (yr)* | 4.2 ± 2.5 (2-20) | |
| BMI (kg/m²) * | 24.9 ± 2.1 (20.3-31.9) | |
| Previous abdominal/pelvic surgery # | ||
| No previous surgery | 316 (52.7) | |
| Appendectomy | 188 (52.7) | |
| Cesarean section | 88 (14.7) | |
| Ovarian cystectomy | 8 (1.3) | |
| Ultrasound appearance of the ovaries # | ||
| Definitely PCOS | 144 (24) | |
| Possible PCOS | 52 (8.7) | |
| Definitely non PCOS | 404 (67.3) | |
| Hysterosalpingography # | ||
| Normal | 388 (64.7) | |
| Subnormal | 212 (35.3) | |
| Unilateral tubal obstruction | 37 (6.2) | |
| Bilateral tubal obstruction | 93 (15.5) | |
| Unilateral poor peritoneal spills | 15 (2.5) | |
| Bilateral poor peritoneal spills | 33 (5.5) | |
| Suspected hydroslpinx | 20 (3.3) | |
| Intra-uterine abnormalities | 56 (9.3) | |
| Previous treatment # | ||
| No treatment | 132 (22) | |
| Ovulation induction | 468 (78) | |
| Intrauterine insemination | 9 (1.5) | |
| IVF | 3 (0.5) | |
SD: Standard deviation
BMI: Body mass index
PCOS: Polycystic ovary syndrome
IVF: In vitro fertilization
Data is presented as mean ± SD (range) and
n (%).
Table II.
Frequency of infertility causes according to the infertility type
| Cause |
Infertility type
|
p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Primary
(n= 344) |
Secondary
(n= 256) |
||
| PCOS (n= 151) | 91 (60.3%) | 60 (39.7%) | 0.01 |
| Tubal factor (n= 180) | 96 (53.3%) | 84 (46.7%) | 0.32 |
| Unexplained (n= 229) | 121 (52.8%) | 108 (47.2%) | 0.17 |
| Uterine factor (n= 24) | 20 (83.3%) | 4 (16.7%) | 0.007 |
| Endometriosis (n= 16) | 16 (100%) | 0 (0%) | <0.001 |
Data are presented as n (%).
PCOS: Polycystic ovary syndrome
Table III.
Laparoscopic and hysteroscopic findings in the study population
| Findings | Frequency n (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Right ovary | ||
| Normal | 408 (68) | |
| Absent (Congenital/surgical) | 4 (0.7) | |
| Atrophic | 4 (0.7) | |
| Polycystic ovary | 136 (22.6) | |
| Ovarian cyst | 36 (6) | |
| Obscured with adhesions | 12 (2) | |
| Left ovary | ||
| Normal | 424 (70.6) | |
| Absent (Congenital/surgical) | 0 (0) | |
| Atrophic | 4 (0.7) | |
| Polycystic ovary | 140 (23.3) | |
| Ovarian cyst | 28 (4.7) | |
| Obscured with adhesions | 4 (0.7) | |
| Right fallopian tube | ||
| Healthy and patent | 452 (75.3) | |
| Absent (Congenital/surgical) | 8 (1.3) | |
| Unhealthy and blocked | 60 (10) | |
| Looks health but blocked | 36 (6) | |
| Obscured with adhesions | 24 (4) | |
| Hydrosalpinx | 20 (3.3) | |
| Left fallopian tube | ||
| Healthy and patent | 440 (73.3) | |
| Absent (Congenital/surgical) | 4 (0.7) | |
| Unhealthy and blocked | 80 (13.3) | |
| Looks health but blocked | 36 (6) | |
| Obscured with adhesions | 20 (3.3) | |
| Hydrosalpinx | 20 (3.3) | |
| Uterus by laparoscopy | ||
| Normal | 504 (84) | |
| Absent or atrophic | 8 (1.3) | |
| Bicornuate | 4 (0.7) | |
| Unicornuate | 8 (1.3) | |
| Arcuate | 4 (0.7) | |
| Broad fundus | 20 (3.3) | |
| Fibroid | 24 (4) | |
| Obscured with adhesions | 28 (4.7) | |
| Pouch of Douglas | ||
| No abnormality detected | 536 (89.3) | |
| Obscured with adhesions | 48 (8) | |
| Spots of endometriosis | 16 (2.7) | |
| Abdomen | ||
| No abnormality detected | 536 (89.3) | |
| Mild / moderate adhesions | 36 (6) | |
| Extensive adhesions | 28 (4.7) | |
| Hysteroscopy (n= 116) | ||
| Normal | 64 (55.3) | |
| Septum | 24 (20.7) | |
| Fibroid | 12 (10.3) | |
| Polyp | 4 (3.4) | |
| Intrauterine adhesions | 12 (10.3) | |
The most common procedure performed during hysteroscopy was excision of intrauterine septum. It was done in 24 cases (20.7%) followed by excision of submucous fibroids and excision of intrauterine adhesions; 12 cases each (10.3%). Removal of endometrial polyps was done in four (3.5%) and hysteroscopy in 64 (55.2%) women (Table IV). Based on laparoscopic and hysteroscopic findings, women were treated with different options during the 1 yr after laparoscopy/hysteroscopy. Expectant management was used in 92 women (15.3%). Ovulation induction with anti-estrogens or gonadotropins was used in 372 cases (62%). Twelve cases (2%) underwent further surgical procedure within the 1 yr after laparoscopy (open adhesiolysis (n=5), myomectomy (n=4), and ovarian cystectomy (n=3)). Sixty women (10%) had intrauterine insemination (IUI) and sixty four cases (10.7%) underwent IVF/ICSI treatment. The management options and resultant pregnancy are shown in table V. Within 1 yr after laparoscopy, 180 cases achieved pregnancy (30%). The most favorable outcome was recorded in women with unexplained infertility (36.7% of cases got pregnant) followed by women with PCOS (27.8%). Participants with uterine and tubal factor infertility achieved pregnancy in 25% and 22.8% of cases, respectively. The worst outcome was recorded in women with endometriosis as no pregnancies were achieved in 16 cases diagnosed with laparoscopy to have endometriosis. The number of participants needed to have laparoscopy ± hysteroscopy (Number Needed to Treat (NNT)) to achieve pregnancy within 1 yr was 3.3 (Table VI). The cumulative pregnancy rate after laparoscopy is shown in figure 2.
Table IV.
Procedures are done during laparoscopy/hysteroscopy
| Procedure | Frequency n (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopy (n= 600) | ||
| Diagnostic only | 248 (41.3) | |
| Laparoscopic ovarian drilling | 152 (25.3) | |
| Adhesiolysis | 68 (11.3) | |
| Tuboplasty | 72 (12) | |
| Ovarian cystectomy | 64 (10.7) | |
| Excision of fibroids | 8 (1.3) | |
| Removal/disconnection of hydrosalpinx | 16 (2.7) | |
| Hysteroscopy (n= 116) | ||
| Diagnostic only | 64 (55.2) | |
| Excision of septum | 24 (20.7) | |
| Excision of submucous fibroids | 12 (10.3) | |
| Excision of intrauterine adhesions | 12 (10.3) | |
| Removal of polyps | 4 (3.5) | |
Table V.
Management within 1 yr after laparoscopy/hysteroscopy
| Management | Frequency | Pregnancy |
|---|---|---|
| Expectant management | 92 (15.3) | 52.92 (56.5) |
| Ovulation induction | 372 (62) | 87.372 (23.4) |
| Further surgical management | 12 (2) | 0.12 (0) |
| Intrauterine insemination (IUI) | 60 (10) | 3.60 (5) |
| IVF/ICSI | 64 (10.7) | 38.64 (59.4) |
Data are presented as frequency and percentages
IVF: In vitro fertilization
ICSI: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection
Table VI.
Pregnancy within 1 yr of laparoscopy/hysteroscopy according to cause of infertility (n= 600)
| Causes of infertility | Pregnancy n (%) | NNT |
|---|---|---|
| Unexplained (n= 229) | 84 (36.7) | 2.73 |
| PCOS (n= 151) | 42 (27.8) | 3.6 |
| Tubal factor (n= 180) | 41 (22.8) | 4.4 |
| Uterine factor (n= 52) | 13 (25) | 4s |
| Endometriosis (n= 16) | 0 (0) |
NNT: Number to treat to achieve pregnancy within 1yr after laparoscopy/hysteroscopy
PCOS: Polycystic ovary syndrome
Figure 2.
Cumulative pregnancy rate after laparoscopy/hysteroscopy.
Discussion
Currently, diagnostic laparoscopy is often bypassed by many infertility specialists in favour of moving forward with ART as the procedure requires general anesthesia and can be associated with a low but potentially serious incidence of risks and complications (17). However, it is believed that diagnostic laparoscopy still has a role in a significant percentage of infertile women (18). In this study, we tried to evaluate the role of laparoscopy/hysteroscopy in diagnosis and management of infertility in our setup. In the current study, tubal pathology was found in 30% of cases. This high incidence reflects the high rate of pelvic infection in our setting. These results are similar to those quoted from other studies (19-22). A higher rate is quoted from one study; 62.8% in women with primary infertility and 54.8% in women with secondary infertility (18). While, lower rates were found by Bonneau and colleagues (18.9%) and Siam (14.4%) (23, 24).
PCOS represented 25.1% of cases which is similar to the rates quoted from other studies done on infertile women in Egypt (24, 25). The much lower rate was reported by Geetika and co-workers (18). This can be attributed to the genetic theory of the pathogenesis of PCOS which can explain the different incidence according to the geographical distribution (26). Among 600 cases, the septate or subseptate uterus was found in 24 cases, bicornuate uterus in 8 cases, unicornuate uterus in 4 cases and absent or atrophic uterus in 8 cases. This rate reflects the high prevalence of müllerian duct anomalies in our locality. This is in agreement with what was reported by El Saman et al (27). The prevalence of unexplained infertility in this study was 38% which is quite high. This can be explained by including of women with normal investigations for infertility after 12 months only. It is supposed that if these women are treated expectantly for a longer time, it is possible that the prevalence of unexplained infertility would be lower. Endometriosis was identified in 2.7% of cases; all of them were primary infertility. This rate is much lower than the rates reported by Bonneau et al (75.8%) and Meuleman et al (78%) (23, 28). This difference can be explained also on the basis of the genetic origin of disease (29).
Participants received different types of treatment within 1 yr of laparoscopy. Expectant management was done in 15.3% of cases and achieved pregnancy in 56.5% of them. Most of these women had no cause for infertility identified by laparoscopy/ hysteroscopy. This high pregnancy rate may reflect that in women with unexplained infertility, it may be better to treat them expectantly for a longer time before deciding to perform a laparoscopy.
Ovulation induction with anti-estrogens or gonadotropins was received in 62% of cases and 23.4% achieved pregnancy on top of ovulation induction. Most of these women were PCOS and that reflects improvement of ovarian responsiveness to ovulation induction after LOD. IUI was tried in 10% of cases but low pregnancy rate was achieved (5%). IVF/ICSI was done in 10.7% of cases and the pregnancy rate was 59.4%. This high rate may be due to the identification of women with tubal pathology who were in need of IVF/ICSI treatment and tubal removal or disconnection in cases of hydrosalpinx who underwent IVF after laparoscopy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, laparoscopy still has an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. A significant number of infertile women, such as those with a tubal factor, PCOS, and women with unexplained infertility can benefit from it. Operative procedures at the time of laparoscopy can enhance conception, naturally, or with IUI/IVF, such as lysis of adhesions, ablation of endometriosis, and salpingectomy or disconnection for hydrosalpinx.
Acknowledgments
The authors are very grateful to the entire medical and nursing staff at Minia Maternity University Hospital for their help throughout the research work. This project was funded by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Minia University, Egypt.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.Nice 2013 fertility assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. 2nd Ed. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health; 2013 . [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hull MG, Glazener CM, Kelly NJ, Conway DI, Foster PA, Hinton RA, et al. Population study of causes, treatment, and outcome of infertility. BMJ. 1985;291:1693–1697. doi: 10.1136/bmj.291.6510.1693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rantala M-L, Koskimies AI. Infertility in women participating in a screening program for cervical cancer in Helsinki. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65:823–825. doi: 10.3109/00016348609157030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Page H. Estimation of the prevalence and incidence of infertility in a population: a pilot study. Fertil Steril. 1989;51:571–577. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60601-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Greenhall E, Vessey M. The prevalence of subfertility: a review of the current confusion and a report of two new studies. Fertil Steril. 1990;54:978–983. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)53990-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Thonneau P, Marchand S, Tallec A, Ferial ML, Ducot B, Lansac J, et al. Incidence and main causes of infertility in a resident population (1,850,000) of three French regions (1988-1989) Hum Reprod. 1991;6:811–816. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.The ESHRE Capri Workshop. Guidelines to the prevalence, diagnosis, treatment and management of infertility, 1996. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:1775–1807. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Buckett W, Bentick B. The epidemiology of infertility in a rural population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;76:233–237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Stephen EH, Chandra A. Use of infertility services in the United States: 1995. Fam Plann Perspect. 2000;32:132–137. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.The epidemiology of infertility. Report of a WHO scientific group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1975;582:1–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Abdallah R, Kligman I. Is there a role for laparoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of infertility in the 21st century. MEFS. 2012;3:147–150. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Al-Wazzan RM, Abdel Jabbar E. Diagnostic laparoscopy in female infertility. Ann Coll Med Mosul. 2009;35:58–64. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Al Badawi IA, Fluker MR, Bebbington MW. Diagnostic laparoscopy in infertile women with normal hysterosalpingograms. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:953–957. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Amer SA, Li TC, Metwally M, Emarh M, Ledger WL. Randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic ovarian diathermy with clomiphene citrate as a first-line method of ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:219–225. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Parazzini F. Ablation of lesions or no treatment in minimal-mild endometriosis in infertile women: a randomized trial Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dell’Endometriosi. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1332–1334. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.5.1332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Jacobson TZ, Barlow DH, Koninckx PR, Olive D, Farquhar C. Laparoscopic surgery for subfertility associated with endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;4:CD001398. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Fatum M, Laufer N, Simon A. Should diagnostic laparoscopy be performed after normal hysterosalpingography in treating infertility suspected to be of unknown origin? Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1–3. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.1.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Geetika J, Ritu K, Atul J, Sumita M. Laparoscopy as a first line diagnostic tool for infertility evaluation. J Clin Diagnos Res. 2014;8:1–2. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9822.4929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Shamim S, Farooq M, Shamim R. Diagnostic Laparoscopic Findings in Infertile Patients in the Saudi Population. Pakistan J Med Health Sci. 2010;4:560–563. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Naz T, Hassan L, Gulmeen , Nighat F, Sultan S. Laparoscopic evaluation in infertility. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2009;19:704–707. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Goel G, Khatuja R, Radhakrishnan G, Agarwal R, Agarwal S, Kaur I. Role of newer methods of diagnosing genital tuberculosis in infertile women. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2013;56:155–157. doi: 10.4103/0377-4929.118670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Aziz N. Laparoscopic evaluation of female factors in infertility. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010;20:649–652. doi: 10.2010/JCPSP.649652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bonneau C, Chanelles O, Sifer C, Poncelet C. Use of laparoscopy in unexplained infertility. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;163:57–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.03.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Siam S. Gynaecologic laparoscopy and reproductive failure: Review of 4103 infertile Egyptian women. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2014;19:102–106. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Badawy A, Elnashar A. Treatment options for polycystic ovary syndrome. Int J Womens Health. 2011;3:25–35. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S11304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Franks S, Gharani N, McCarthy M. Candidate genes in polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:405–410. doi: 10.1093/humupd/7.4.405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.El Saman A, Shahin A, Nasr A, Shaaban O, Fathalla M, Sadeldeen H, et al. Müllerian duct anomalies: towards an ‘adolescent-focused, treatment-based’ classification system. Evid Based Women Health J . 2012;2:69–79. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Meuleman C, Vandenabeele B, Fieuws S, Spiessens C, Timmerman D, D'Hooghe T. High prevalence of endometriosis in infertile women in normal ovulation and normospermic patterns. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:68–74. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.04.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Vitonis AF, Vincent K, Rahmioglu N, Fassbender A, Buck Louis GM, Hummelshoj L, et al. World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and biobanking harmonization project: II Clinical and covariate phenotype data collection in endometriosis research. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1223–1232. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.1244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]