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.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Here, we retrospectively analyzed the success rate of reconstructive microsurgery for tubal infertility (RMTI) as a \"first-line\" approach to achieving tubal reversal and pregnancy after tubal infertility.
METHODS: During 9 consecutive years (2005-2014), 96 patients diagnosed with obstructive tubal infertility underwent RMTI (tubal reversal, salpingostomy, and/or tubal implantation) in our centre. The outcomes are presented in terms of tubal reversal rate and pregnancy and correlated with age, level of tubal obstruction, and duration of tubal infertility.
RESULTS: The overall tubal reversal rate was 87.56% (84 patients). The 48-month cumulative pregnancy rate was 78.04% (64 patients), of which seven ectopic pregnancies occurred (8.53%). The reversibility rate for women under 35 yo was 90.47%, with a birth rate of 73.01%. The reconstruction at the infundibular segments favored higher ectopic pregnancy rates (four ectopic pregnancies for anastomosis at infundibular level-57.14%, two for ampullary level-28.57%, and one for replantation technique-14.28%), with a significant value for p < 0.05.
CONCLUSIONS: In the context of IVF \"industrialization\", reconstructive microsurgery for tubal infertility has become increasingly less favored. However, under available expertise and proper indication, RMTI can be successfully used to restore a woman\'s ability to conceive naturally with a high postoperative pregnancy rate overall, especially in women under 35 yo.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cost and efficacy of tubal anastomosis to in vitro fertilization (IVF) in women who desired fertility after a tubal ligation.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
METHODS: Not applicable.
METHODS: Not applicable.
METHODS: Not applicable.
METHODS: Cost per ongoing pregnancy.
RESULTS: Cost per ongoing pregnancy for women after tubal anastomosis ranged from $16,446 to $223,482 (2014 USD), whereas IVF ranged from $32,902 to $111,679 (2014 USD). Across maternal age groups <35 and 35-40, years tubal anastomosis was more cost effective than IVF for ongoing pregnancy. Sensitivity analyses validated these findings across a wide range of ongoing pregnancy probabilities as well as costs per procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Tubal anastomosis was the most cost-effective approach for most women less than 41 years of age, whereas IVF was the most cost-effective approach for women aged ≥41 years who desired fertility after tubal ligation. A model was created that can be modified based on cost and success rates in individual clinics for improved patient counseling.

OBJECTIVE: Regret after tubal ligation continues to be a problem. After tubal ligation, couples have the option of tubal surgery or in vitro fertilization (IVF).
METHODS: Using decision analysis techniques, we compared cost-effectiveness of tubal reanastomosis by tubal type vs tubal surgery or in vitro fertilization (IVF) for 3 separate age groups of women: <35 years of age, 35 to 40 years of age and >40 years of age. Tubal techniques was divided into type A, those with more favorable prognosis because of the likelihood of having a more significant length tube at time of reanastomosis and type B, those with a worse prognosis of success. We incorporated delivery costs to address the impact of high order multiples in IVF. Data were extracted by studies available in the literature. All costs were adjusted to 2012 US dollars. One-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: The laparoscopic reanastomosis of type A dominated the other groups, because it was more effective and less costly then type B and IVF. However, when women were >40 years old with a history of type B, IVF was favored when its costs were at the lower limit.
CONCLUSIONS: The most cost-effective choice for a woman desiring pregnancy after tubal ligation is laparoscopic reanastomosis after a prior clip or ring tubal ligation for women ≤40 years old. It is also the most cost-effective for the oldest cohort, assuming IVF costs are greater than $4500.