OBJECTIVE: Between 20% and 30% of women who have undergone tubal ligation regret their decision. The alternative to regain fertility for these women is either in vitro fertilization or tubal re-anastomosis. This article presents a systematic review with meta-analysis to assess the current evidence on the efficacy of tubal recanalization surgery in patients who have previously undergone tubal ligation.
METHODS: The search was conducted in the World of Science (WOS) database, The Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov record using the keywords \"tubal reversal\", \"tubal reanastomosis\" and \"tubal anastomosis\". The review was carried out by two of the authors. Data from 22 studies were evaluated, comprising over 14,113 patients who underwent the studied surgery, following strict inclusion criteria: articles published between January 2012 and June 2022, in English and with a sample size bigger than 10 patients were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS: The overall pregnancy rate after anastomosis was found to be 65.3 % (95 % CI: 61.0-69.6). The percentage of women who had at least one live birth, known as the birth rate, was 42.6 % (95 % CI: 34.9-51.4). Adverse outcomes after surgery were also examined: the observed abortion rate among women who underwent surgery was 9.4 % (95 % CI: 7.0-11.7), and the overall ectopic pregnancy rate was 6.8 % (95 % CI: 4.6-9.0). No differences were found between the outcomes when differentiating surgical approaches: laparotomy, laparoscopy, or robotic-assisted surgery. The patient\'s age was identified as the most significant determining factor for fertility restoration. Finally, when comparing the results of tubal reversal with in vitro fertilization, reversal procedures appear more favorable for patients over 35 years old, while the results are similar for patients under 35 years old, but more data is needed to evaluate this finding.
CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the available literature review demonstrates that surgical anastomosis following tubal ligation is a reproducible technique with relevant success rates, performed by multiple expert groups worldwide.

Five to 20% of women regret having a tubal ligation. These women are generally otherwise fertile and have a better chance of pregnancy than other patients experiencing infertility, whether by in vitro fertilization or after tubal surgery. Historically, tubal anastomosis surgery has long been performed by microsurgery through laparotomy, which provided very high precision but was associated with some degree of morbidity. The parallel development of in vitro fertilization and laparoscopy have contributed to reducing the indications for tubal surgery. The laparoscopic approach is challenging because of the number and precision of the sutures needed. The robot-assisted laparoscopic approach may reduce the surgical difficulty and improve the accessibility of this technique. We have described the technique of tubo-tubal reanastomosis after sterilization with robot-assisted laparoscopy in 10 steps. Robot-assisted laparoscopy provides favourable conditions for performing tubo-tubal reanastomosis after sterilization due to the camera stability, precision of movement, and amplitude of articulations.

OBJECTIVE: To show the technique of reduced sutures in 3D laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis.
METHODS: Step-by-step demonstration of the procedure using video.
METHODS: Laparoscopic tubal sterilization reversal demands high precision and requires both skill and experience. Conventionally, 4 to 6 interrupted patterns using 6-0 to 8-0 absorbable sutures are used for laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis. We used fewer and larger sutures under a magnified 3D view to perform the procedure.
METHODS: We presented a case of a 42-year-old woman, gravida 3, para 3, who underwent tubal sterilization during Cesarean section 10 years ago. Preoperative hysterosalpingography (HSG) showed bilateral distal tubal occlusion. The procedure started with the subserosal injection of diluted vasopressin in both proximal and distal ends and in the mesosalpinx to facilitate dissection and hemostasis. After transection of tubal stump and removal of scar tissue, we used a 3 Fr ureteral catheter as the stent to facilitate suturing. Three interrupted 4-0 monocryl sutures were used for suturing both tubal mucosal and muscular layers at 6, 2, and 10 o\'clock sites. We performed bilateral ampullo-ampullary reanastomosis. The tubes were successfully reanastomosed, and patency was confirmed by chromotubation performed at the end of the procedure (Figure 1). The operation lasted for 71 minutes. The operative blood loss was less than 50 ml. Patent right fallopian tube was confirmed on postoperative HSG 1 month later. The patient had a successful pregnancy 8 months after the operation.
CONCLUSIONS: Our experience shows the feasibility of 3D laparoscopy for tubal reanastomosis using reduced sutures. The technique alleviates the damage to the fallopian tube. The operative time, hospital stay, and postoperative adhesions were significantly lower than the conventional method with a comparable success rate.

Regret after female sterilization is not uncommon in the United States. Prior to the development of assisted reproductive technology (ART), surgical reversal of sterilization was the only option for patients interested in fertility. First performed in 1972, this procedure has since been refined over the years by gynaecologic surgeons. With in-vitro fertilization (IVF) gaining popularity, interest in sterilization reversal has waned. However, sterilization reversal should remain an important option in patients seeking pregnancy after tubal ligation.
A direct comparison between IVF and sterilization reversal is challenging due to inherent differences in reporting fertility outcomes. However, sterilization reversal may optimize fertility in younger women, whereas IVF may be more effective in older women. The surgical approach to sterilization reversal can be laparotomic, laparoscopic or robotic. Clinical decision making should include consideration of the risk of ectopic pregnancy, interval from sterilization to reversal, type of sterilization procedure, planned anastomotic site and projected remaining tubal length.
In the era of IVF, sterilization reversal still has a place in the management in restoring fertility. Creating awareness of the role of sterilization reversal is the first step in improving access to adequate training in this procedure for the next generation of reproductive surgeons.

To estimate the risk of sterilization regret based on age at the time of sterilization in a contemporary group of women.
We conducted a retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the 2015-2017 and 2017-2019 National Survey of Family Growth, Female Respondent Files, to estimate the proportion of women who experience sterilization regret. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the population and the proportion with regret. Sterilization regret was defined as someone who either underwent sterilization reversal or who definitely wanted sterilization reversal. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations with sterilization regret.
A total of 1,549 women who underwent sterilization were included in the analysis; 8% were aged 21-30 years, and 92% were aged older than 30 years. Of the participants, 16.9% identified as Black, 22.0% as Hispanic, and 57.2% as White. Most (58.4%) underwent a tubal sterilization procedure between age 21 and 30 years. The cumulative proportion of regret was 10.2% (12.6% for women who underwent sterilization at age 21-30 years and 6.7% for those who underwent sterilization at older than age 30 years). After controlling for covariates including age, race, parity, educational attainment, and medical reason for sterilization, the only variable that had a statistically significant association with regret was age at the time of the interview (P<.001). As women got older, they were less likely to report sterilization regret.
Younger women experience more sterilization regret. As women get older, sterilization regret decreases. Counseling about sterilization should reveal the unpredictability of future desire, but age alone must not be a barrier to performing sterilization.

BACKGROUND: Tubal reanastamosis offers hope to conceive again. However, there are many factors that affect the success of this procedure. In our study we aimed to compare the pregnancy rates of the surgical methods used for tubal reanastamosis in pregnancy requested after tubal sterilization.
METHODS: In our study we compared the rates of pregnancies after reanastamosis retrospectively in female patients under the age of 40 who underwent reanastamosis between 2010 and 2019 with laparotomic, laparoscopic and robotic methods. A single layer of 4 quadrant 6/0 number polydioxanone absorbable sutures were used in all surgical methods. A similar surgical technique was used.
RESULTS: In surgical methods (laparotomy, laparoscopy, and robotics), there was a statistical difference between the three groups in terms of operation times of surgical methods used for tubal reanastamosis (p < 0.05). Laparotomy, laparoscopy, and robotics pregnancy rates were 52.6% (n = 41), 67.3% (n = 37), 61.2% (n = 63), respectively. There was no statistical difference between groups in terms of pregnancy rates. However, odds ratio (OR) values of the laparoscopy group and robotics group probability of conception were 1.536 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.813-2.898), 1.111 (95% CI, 0.656-1.879) higher, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no statistical difference between the surgical methods used for tubal reanastamosis, we think that the laparoscopic surgical method may be preferable due to the shorter hospital stay. We think that the previous method of bilateral tubaligastion (BTL), the site of reanastasis, and the time between BTL and reanastomosis were effective in pregnancy success.

Tubal reanastomosis or tubal reversal, a surgical method used to reverse tubal sterilization, may be an option for women who for various reasons wish to reestablish their fertility. A 38-year-old Chinese woman, gravida 2, para 2 (both delivered through cesarean section) presented to our outpatient gynecology clinic requesting bilateral tubal recanalization. After other causes of infertility were excluded, laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis was performed. Here, we present our tips and techniques for laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis that rapidly resulted in an intrauterine pregnancy, which delivered at term. Laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis is a well-established procedure with good prognosis, as reported in the literature. For women who wish to become pregnant after tubal sterilization, it is necessary to present the option of surgery as well as in vitro fertilization.

This document reviews surgical options for reparative tubal surgery and the factors that must be considered when deciding between surgical repair and in vitro fertilization. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2012 (Fertil Steril 2015;103:e37-43). This document reviews surgical options for reparative tubal surgery and the factors that must be considered when deciding between surgical repair and in vitro fertilization.

BACKGROUND: Tubal anastomosis has similar pregnancy rates regardless of approach. Historically, robotic anastomosis has been associated with increased cost and operative time. We sought to perform a contemporary study of these metrics.
METHODS: One hundred and nine patients were identified who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic tubal anastomosis. Retrospective analysis of medical records was performed. Phone survey was conducted.
RESULTS: The mean operative time decreased from 140.7 ± 27.0 min in 2013 to 60.0 ± 9.1 min in 2018, with significant downward trend (p < 0.001). The mean cost was $7153.46 ± $1484.41. The pregnancy rate was 59% (35/59), and tubal patency rate was 81% (42/52). Seventy-two percent of patients under 37 years became pregnant.
CONCLUSIONS: There is significant improvement in operative time of robotic-assisted tubal anastomosis with surgical experience. Robotic tubal anastomosis outperformed historical metrics of laparoscopy and laparotomy with regard to operative time and cost in this series.

On the occasion of the 45th anniversary of the introduction of microsurgery in urology, the author describes the historical development of urologic microsurgery in Germany, with special reference to vasectomy reversal. Together with contemporary witnesses, a critical historical review is drawn and the current status is analyzed as well as an outlook is given.
UNASSIGNED: Das 45-jährige Jubiläum der Einführung der Mikrochirurgie in die Urologie nimmt der Autor zum Anlass, um einen Überblick über die historische Entwicklung der urologischen Mikrochirurgie in Deutschland unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Refertilisierungschirurgie zu geben. Unter Einbeziehung von Zeitzeugen gelingt eine fast lückenlose Darstellung der Schwerpunkte dieser Entwicklung. Eine kritische Bilanz der aktuellen Situation und ein Ausblick zur Zukunft der Mikrochirurgie in der deutschen Urologie bilden den Abschluss.