ELIGIBILITY OF THERAPEUTIC PROCEDURES
Tubal surgery
The main benefit of tubal surgery is that it can restore fertility. It therefore provides a design without the need to resort to other treatment. Tubal surgery may be more acceptable for couples because it is less stressful than IVF and avoids many of the ethical dilemmas, ethical and religious techniques of in vitro fertilization. The woman retains control of fertility and
any error handling of gametes or embryos can occur with in vitro techniques are avoided. Means for performing tubal surgery are usually present in all hospitals normally equipped and once the initial investment in hardware is achieved, the costs to bv info
the institution are not high. On the other hand, experience shows that reconstructive tubal surgery should be done by gynecologists who have sufficient training in microsurgery and operate a sufficient number of patients to maintain a good skill.
The disadvantages of tubal surgery are mainly those of any major surgery, the need to use anesthesia and hospitalization. Any major surgery carries the risk of thromboembolism, hemorrhage and infection. However, laparoscopic surgery allows patients to have less pain, a shorter hospital stay and faster recovery after laparotomy.Tubal surgery is also associated with the risk of ectopic pregnancy. The risk is greater after salpingonéostomie and
fimbrioplasty salpingolyse and after anastomosis. The risk of ectopic pregnancy increases significantly in the presence of tubal mucosal adhesions.
In vitro fertilizationA major advantage of in vitro fertilization is that the procedure can be performed on an outpatient basis and the pain can be
controlled with analgesics. In addition, the treatment outcome is known in the space of two weeks. Complications such as infection and bleeding can occur but they are rare and usually mild. The risk of ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization is low (approximately 1.4% per transfer) but increases in patients who have distal tubal disease.
There are several disadvantages to in vitro fertilization. Each treatment cycle is accompanied by a significant psychological stress, inconvenience and social disruption. That patients often need to use several cycles to get a pregnancy rate of 50% these problems are repeated at each cycle. The disappointment and failure mechanisms of mourning are different for the two treatment modalities. Health risks that are associated with in vitro fertilization are related to the use of ovarian stimulation. This can lead to the formation of ovarian cysts and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which is sometimes severe
enough to require hospitalization. Multiple pregnancies, premature birth and neonatal complications are more frequent. Although the rate of multiple pregnancies serious can be reduced by limiting the number of embryos transferred, the possibility of twins or triplets is anyway higher than after reconstruction surgery. The potential risk of ovarian cancer as a result of drug use profertilité caused a reflection, but no proof of their liability has not been made.
COST OF TREATMENT
The cost-effectiveness of reconstructive surgery and in vitro fertilization was evaluated but this analysis is imprecise in the absence of randomized trials. The comparative results show that reconstructive surgery is less expensive than in vitro
fertilization except when it comes to severe tubal damage. Even if the pregnancy rate of IVF was doubled, the cost per clinical pregnancy remain higher than most interventions reconstructive surgery.
CONCLUSION
Couples who have tubal infertility are two treatment options for pregnant and must choose between reconstructrive tubal surgery and IVF. There is a progress thanks to the possibility of in vitro fertilization, instead of surgery may be challenged and surgery the prognosis is the worst can be avoided. This is why IVF does not replace surgery, but turns out to
be complementary. The most important is the selection of patients based on an accurate assessment of the severity, location and extent of the lesions. When conditions are favorable, tubal infertility can be treated by reconstructive surgery. When conditions are not favorable or in the presence of an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy, tubal infertility can be treated Bacterial
by in vitro fertilization. In clinical practice, the process of choosing one or the other of the two techniques must take into account other factors such as age, duration of infertility, male factor, acceptability and cost .
Tubal surgery
The main benefit of tubal surgery is that it can restore fertility. It therefore provides a design without the need to resort to other treatment. Tubal surgery may be more acceptable for couples because it is less stressful than IVF and avoids many of the ethical dilemmas, ethical and religious techniques of in vitro fertilization. The woman retains control of fertility and
any error handling of gametes or embryos can occur with in vitro techniques are avoided. Means for performing tubal surgery are usually present in all hospitals normally equipped and once the initial investment in hardware is achieved, the costs to bv info
the institution are not high. On the other hand, experience shows that reconstructive tubal surgery should be done by gynecologists who have sufficient training in microsurgery and operate a sufficient number of patients to maintain a good skill.
The disadvantages of tubal surgery are mainly those of any major surgery, the need to use anesthesia and hospitalization. Any major surgery carries the risk of thromboembolism, hemorrhage and infection. However, laparoscopic surgery allows patients to have less pain, a shorter hospital stay and faster recovery after laparotomy.Tubal surgery is also associated with the risk of ectopic pregnancy. The risk is greater after salpingonéostomie and
fimbrioplasty salpingolyse and after anastomosis. The risk of ectopic pregnancy increases significantly in the presence of tubal mucosal adhesions.
In vitro fertilizationA major advantage of in vitro fertilization is that the procedure can be performed on an outpatient basis and the pain can be
controlled with analgesics. In addition, the treatment outcome is known in the space of two weeks. Complications such as infection and bleeding can occur but they are rare and usually mild. The risk of ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization is low (approximately 1.4% per transfer) but increases in patients who have distal tubal disease.
There are several disadvantages to in vitro fertilization. Each treatment cycle is accompanied by a significant psychological stress, inconvenience and social disruption. That patients often need to use several cycles to get a pregnancy rate of 50% these problems are repeated at each cycle. The disappointment and failure mechanisms of mourning are different for the two treatment modalities. Health risks that are associated with in vitro fertilization are related to the use of ovarian stimulation. This can lead to the formation of ovarian cysts and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which is sometimes severe
enough to require hospitalization. Multiple pregnancies, premature birth and neonatal complications are more frequent. Although the rate of multiple pregnancies serious can be reduced by limiting the number of embryos transferred, the possibility of twins or triplets is anyway higher than after reconstruction surgery. The potential risk of ovarian cancer as a result of drug use profertilité caused a reflection, but no proof of their liability has not been made.
COST OF TREATMENT
The cost-effectiveness of reconstructive surgery and in vitro fertilization was evaluated but this analysis is imprecise in the absence of randomized trials. The comparative results show that reconstructive surgery is less expensive than in vitro
fertilization except when it comes to severe tubal damage. Even if the pregnancy rate of IVF was doubled, the cost per clinical pregnancy remain higher than most interventions reconstructive surgery.
CONCLUSION
Couples who have tubal infertility are two treatment options for pregnant and must choose between reconstructrive tubal surgery and IVF. There is a progress thanks to the possibility of in vitro fertilization, instead of surgery may be challenged and surgery the prognosis is the worst can be avoided. This is why IVF does not replace surgery, but turns out to
be complementary. The most important is the selection of patients based on an accurate assessment of the severity, location and extent of the lesions. When conditions are favorable, tubal infertility can be treated by reconstructive surgery. When conditions are not favorable or in the presence of an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy, tubal infertility can be treated Bacterial
by in vitro fertilization. In clinical practice, the process of choosing one or the other of the two techniques must take into account other factors such as age, duration of infertility, male factor, acceptability and cost .
No comments:
Post a Comment