The cost-effectiveness of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in the work-up for subfertility.

STUDY QUESTION: Is a strategy starting with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with hysterosalpingography (HSG) in the work-up for subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: A strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the work-up for subfertile women. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Tubal pathology is a common cause of subfertility and tubal patency testing is one of the cornerstones of the fertility work-up. Both THL and HSG are safe procedures and can be used as a first-line tubal patency test. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing THL and HSG in 300 subfertile women, between May 2013 and October 2016. For comparisons of THL and HSG, the unit costs were split into three main categories: costs of the diagnostic procedure, costs of fertility treatments and the costs for pregnancy outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Subfertile women scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible. Women were randomized to a strategy starting with THL or a strategy starting with HSG. The primary outcome of the study was conception leading to a live birth within 24 months after randomization. The mean costs and outcomes for each treatment group were compared. We used a non-parametric bootstrap resampling of 1000 re-samples to investigate the effect of uncertainty and we created a cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG, and we were able to achieve complete follow-up of 142 versus 148 women, respectively. After the fertility work-up women were treated according to the Dutch guidelines and based on a previously published prognostic model. In the THL group, 83 women (58.4%) conceived a live born child within 24 months after randomization compared to 82 women (55.4%) in the HSG group (difference 3.0% (95% CI: -8.3 to 14.4)). The mean total costs per woman were lower in the THL group compared to the HSG group (THL group €4991 versus €5262 in the HSG group, mean cost difference = -€271 (95% CI -€273 to -€269)). Although the costs of only the diagnostic procedure were higher in the THL group, in the HSG group more women underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopies and also had higher costs for fertility treatments. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial was conducted in women with a low risk of tubal pathology; therefore, the results of our study are not generalizable to women with high risk of tubal pathology. Furthermore, this economic analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare system, and possibly our results are not generalizable to countries with different strategies or costs for fertility treatments. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: After 2 years of follow-up, we found a live birth rate of 58.4% in the THL group versus 55.4% in the HSG group and a lower mean cost per woman in the THL group, with a cost difference of -€271. The findings of our trial suggest that a strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the workup for subfertile women. However, the cost difference between the two diagnostic strategies is limited compared to the total cost per woman in our study and before implementing THL as a first-line strategy for tubal patency testing, more research in other fields, such as patient preference and acceptance, is necessary. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The authors received no external financial support for the research. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA, Guerbet. B.W.J.M. reports receiving travel support from Merck KGaA. C.T.P. reports consultancy for Guerbet, outside of this manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3462.

Performance of outpatient transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the feasibility of performing transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) in an outpatient setting? SUMMARY ANSWER: It is feasible to perform THL in an outpatient setting, reflected by a low complication and failure rate and a high patients' satisfaction. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: THL is a safe method to investigate tubal patency and exploring the pelvis in subfertile women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective cohort study of 1127 subfertile women who underwent THL as primary diagnostic method for testing tubal patency in an outpatient setting. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied all THL procedures performed as a primary diagnostic tubal patency test in an outpatient setting in subfertile women starting from the initial THL in four large hospitals. Baseline characteristics were obtained, as well as the outcome of the procedures in terms of success, complications and findings by examining medical records. We used a uniform visual analogue scale (VAS) score document to collect data on pain and acceptability prospectively and compared two methods of pain relief. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We studied a total of 1103 women who underwent THL. Successful access to the pouch of Douglas was achieved in 1028 women (93.2%), and 1017 women had a complete evaluation (92.2%). Double-sided tubal patency was found in 844 women (83%), unilateral tubal patency in 127 women (12.5%), while in 46 women (4.5%) bilateral occluded tubes were diagnosed. Endometriosis alone was seen in 64 women (6.3%), adhesions alone in 87 women (8.6%) and both endometriosis and adhesions in 42 women (4.1%).Complications occurred in 29 (2.6%) women, including 10 perforations of the rectum (0.9%), 8 perforations of the posterior uterine wall (0.7%) and 5 infections/pelvic inflammatory diseases (PIDs) (0.5%). Bleeding of the vaginal wall requiring intervention and hospital admissions due to pain was seen in 4 (0.4%) and 2 women, respectively (0.2%). The average pain score was rated 4.0 (±2.4 SD) on a VAS from 0 to 10 with 0 meaning no pain at all with no difference in different types of pain relief. Acceptability was rated 1.5 (±2.1 SD). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitation of the study is its retrospective character and the fact that only a fourth of the women were asked for pain and acceptability scores. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: THL can be used as a primary method for tubal assessment in an outpatient setting. Further randomized studies are needed to assess whether THL is superior to other methods and strategies for tubal assessment in terms of prognostic capacity and cost-effectiveness. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Fertility-related quality of life in subfertile women undergoing tubal testing with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy or hysterosalpingography.

OBJECTIVE: Both subfertility and its management can have significant impact on quality of life (QoL). Tubal patency testing as part of the fertility work-up, is considered to cause more physical complaints and stress than other tests. Pain scores for HSG are higher than for THL, but acceptability of the procedures was found to be comparable. Fertility-related QoL has not yet been studied in women undergoing tubal patency testing. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a standardized questionnaire study alongside a previously reported randomized controlled trial comparing THL and HSG in subfertile women, in which 24-month live birth rates occurred in 58.5% versus 55.4%, respectively. We randomly assigned 300 subfertile women to THL or HSG between May 2013 and October 2016. Women were eligible if they were undergoing a fertility work-up with an indication for evaluation of tubal patency. Fertility-related QoL was measured six weeks after the procedure with the validated FertiQoL questionnaire. The scores for the Core scale and subscales between THL and HSG were compared using Mann-Whitney-U test and multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 84 women in the THL group (56%) and 96 women in the HSG group (64%). Core scores were 74.6 ± 12.8 for THL and 73.4 ± 12.4 for HSG (p = 0.39). Scores for the Emotional domain were 64.5 ± 19.0 for THL versus 66.0 ± 16.3 (p = 0.67) for HSG. Scores for the 'Mind-body' domain for THL were 76.9 ± 15.6 versus 74.1 ± 18.0 for HSG (p = 0.42), while scores for the Relational domain were 79.2 ± 12.9 for THL and 76.9 ± 15.6 for HSG (p = 0.21). Scores for the Social domain for THL were 77.9 ± 15.1 versus 76.7 ± 14.1, (p = 0.42). The multiple linear regression analysis showed only a statistical significant positive effect of older age on the score for the Emotional domain (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: In a preselected group of women with low risk for tubal pathology we did not find differences in fertility-related QoL between tubal patency testing with THL versus HSG.

The capacity of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy versus hysterosalpingography to diagnose tubal pathology in the work-up of subfertile women, a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the capacity of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) versus hysterosalpingography (HSG) as a primary tool to diagnose tubal pathology. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a multicenter RCT (NTR3462) in 4 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands, comparing THL and HSG as first line tubal test in subfertile women. The primary outcome of the trial was cumulative live birth rate at 24 months. Here, we present the secondary outcomes, the diagnostic findings of both THL and HSG as well as performance defined as failures, complications and pain- and acceptability scores. RESULTS: Between May 2013 and October 2016, we allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG, of which 17 women in the THL group (11.4%) and 12 in the HSG group (7.9%) conceived naturally before the scheduled procedure, while 13 HSGs and 5 THLs were not performed for other reasons (withdrawal of informed consent, not willing to undergo tubal testing and protocol violations). A total of 119 THLs and 134 HSGs were carried out. Failures were seen more in the THL group (n = 8, 5.6%) than in the HSG group (n = 1, 0.7%) (p = 0.014). Complications did not differ significantly between the groups (THL n = 4; 2.8% vs HSG n = 1; 0.7%) (p = 0.20). Bilateral tubal occlusion was detected in one versus three women (0.9% versus 2.2%) of the THL group and HSG group, while unilateral tubal occlusion was detected in seven (6.2%) versus eight (5.9%) women, respectively. Normal findings were seen in 96 (79.3%) women randomised to THL and in 119 (87.5%) in women randomised for HSG (RR 0.91 95%CI 0.81-1.01, p = 0.08). The pain score was significantly less for THL (VAS 4.7 (SD: 2.5)) than for HSG (VAS 5.4 (SD:2.5)) (p 0.038). The acceptability rate of THL and was high and comparable. CONCLUSION: THL and HSG have a comparable capacity in diagnosing tubal pathology with comparable performance in safety, pain and acceptability.