Comparative Study of Hysteroscopic Versus Laparoscopic Tubal Occlusion in Cases of Communicating Hydrosalpinx and Planning for IVF

The study will include 108 patients complaining of infertility associated with unilateral or bilateral tubal communicating hydrosalpinx. All the patients will be subjected to informed consent, history taking, full physical examination, ultrasound examination via transvaginal approach using ultrasound machine ( Voluson Pro-V and GE Voluson E 10) and HSG within the last 6 months showing unilateral or bilateral communicating hydrosalpinx.

The patients (108) will be equally randomized into two groups :

Group (A): 54 patients (Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion group). Group (B): 54 patients (Laparoscopic tubal occlusion group). Randomization will be done using 108 opaque sealed envelopes that will be numbered serially from 1-108 and each envelope corresponding letter which denotes the allocated group will be put according to randomization table then all envelopes will be closed and put in one box, when the first patient arrives, after giving informed consent, the first envelope will be opened and the patient will be allocated according to the letter inside.

For hysteroscopic tubal occlusion group it will be done under general anesthesia using standard, rigid 4-mm hysteroscopy with a 30° forward-oblique lens and a 5.5-mm diagnostic sheath (Karl Storz , Germany). Uterine distension allowed a panoramic view of the uterine cavity and identification of the tubal ostia.The roller ball (Ball Electrode, unipolar, 5 Fr) will be used for the coagulation of the interstitial part of the tube and the uterine cornu area.

For laparoscopic tubal occlusion group it will be done under general anesthesia using bipolar coagulation and a proximal tubal cut. The contraindications for laparoscopy were mainly extensive abdominal or pelvic adhesions of various etiologies (e.g. previous surgery, pelvic inflammatory disease, and pelvic endometriosis) and morbid obesity.