A prospective evaluation of the effect of salpingectomy on endometrial receptivity in cases of women with communicating hydrosalpinges

• Published in: Human reproduction (Oxford) Vol. 16; no. 11; pp. 2422 - 2426
• Main Authors: Bildirici, I., Bukulmez, O., Ensari, A., Yarali, H., Gurgan, T.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 01-11-2001
• Subjects: Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Biomarkers - analysis; Biopsy; Embryo Implantation; endometrial receptivity; Endometrium - chemistry; Endometrium - pathology; Endometrium - physiopathology; Epithelium - pathology; Fallopian Tube Diseases - diagnostic imaging; Fallopian Tube Diseases - physiopathology; Fallopian Tube Diseases - surgery; Fallopian Tubes - surgery; Female; Female genital diseases; Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Humans; hydrosalpinx; Medical sciences; Non tumoral diseases; Prospective Studies; Receptors, Vitronectin - analysis; salpingectomy; Ultrasonography; αvβ3 integrin; αvβ; hydrosalpinx; integrin; endometrial receptivity; salpingectomy; Human; Integrin; Uterus; Hydrosalpinx; Sexual receptivity; Female genital system; Female; Salpingectomy; Gene expression; Endometrium; Female genital diseases
• DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.11.2422
• EISSN: 1460-2350
• ISSN: 0268-1161

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess whether salpingectomy in women with communicating hydrosalpinges influenced endometrial receptivity. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were: women with communicating hydrosalpinges, absence of other confounding infertility factors and aged <40 years. Patients were scheduled for laparoscopy during the putative window of implantation (cycle days 19–21). In patients in whom salpingectomy was decided upon due to the severity of tubal disease (n = 10), an intra-operative endometrial biopsy was performed. Post-treatment endometrial sampling was done between day 19–21 of the fourth consecutive cycle. Pre-treatment and post-treatment samples were assessed by both conventional histologic criteria and αvβ3 integrin immunostaining, where histological score (HSCORE) was used for quantification. RESULTS: Despite normal histological maturation assessed by conventional criteria, 8/10 hydrosalpinx cases yielded an epithelial HSCORE of <0.7, which was below the accepted threshold. Following salpingectomy, luminal endometrial epithelium demonstrated a significantly increased αvβ3 integrin expression (Wilcoxon's signed rank test, P = 0.017). Although the mean HSCORE for glandular epithelia improved, it failed to reach statistical significance. Ultrasound visible hydrosalpinges (n = 5) and non-visible cases (n = 5) were also compared. However, neither the pre-treatment integrin expression, nor the postoperative improvement were significantly different between these groups. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the surgical treatment of communicating hydrosalpinges may improve endometrial receptivity as assessed by αvβ3 integrin expression. Women with hydrosalpinges may undergo endometrial evaluation by the molecular markers of implantation, such as αvβ3 integrin. This evaluation may be decisive in determining the optimal management of cases, and may also be used to assess the efficacy of the treatment. The expression of the implantation markers should be correlated with implantation and clinical pregnancy rates in IVF–embryo transfer programs.