RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: We aim to compare live birth rates, cost analysis and a survey of patient attitudes between laparosopic tubal re-anastomosis and in vitro fertilisation (IVF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was done in a single reproductive medicine and IVF unit in Singapore from January 2011 to December 2016. Previously ligated patients underwent either laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis or IVF. The primary outcome was first live birth after treatment. Interval to first pregnancy, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancies were also reported. Patients attending the subfertility clinic completed a questionnaire on IVF and tubal re-anastomosis on preferred choice of treatment, before and after reading an information sheet. RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent tubal re-anastomosis while 31 patients underwent IVF treatment. Pregnancy (75.0% vs 35.5%) and live birth (58.3% vs 25.8%) were significantly higher in the tubal surgery group (P <0.05%) after transferring all available embryos in one stimulated IVF cycle. Cost per live birth was lower in the tubal surgery group (SGD27,109 vs SGD52,438). One hundred patients participated in the survey. A majority of patients preferred tubal surgery to IVF (68.2% vs 31.8%) before given information on the procedures, but indicated a preference for IVF (54.6%) to surgery (45.4%) after receiving information on the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For women less than 40 years of age, desiring fertility after tubal ligation, laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis offers better live birth rates and cost-effectiveness. Patients in Singapore are equivocal as to their preference after education regarding the choices. Thus, laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis remains a viable alternative to IVF treatment.
