Infertility due to blocked fallopian tubes is a significant concern for many women, often leading them to consider in vitro fertilization (IVF) as a primary solution. However, fallopian tube recanalization (FTR) presents a viable and less invasive and costly alternative. Should you consider this option?
Understanding Fallopian Tube Blockage
Blocked fallopian tubes are a common cause of female infertility, accounting for approximately 25-30% of cases.1 The fallopian tubes are essential for the transportation of eggs from the ovaries to the uterus and for fertilization to occur. Blockages can result from various factors, including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), endometriosis, previous surgical procedures, or infections. When the tubes are blocked, sperm cannot reach the egg, preventing natural conception.
Fallopian Tube Recanalization (FTR)
Procedure Overview
Fallopian tube recanalization is a minimally invasive procedure performed by an interventional radiologist. During the procedure, our board-certified interventional radiologist places a catheter and guidewire through the cervix and uterus into the blocked fallopian tube. The guidewire helps to clear the blockage, restoring patency to the tube and enabling natural conception.2 This procedure is performed under fluoroscopic (x-ray) guidance, allowing the radiologist to visualize and navigate the tubes accurately.
Efficacy and Success Rates
Research indicates that FTR can effectively restore tubal patency, with success rates reported between 60% and 90%, depending on the nature and extent of the blockage.3 Contact our office to set up an appointment with our doctor to have your potential success rate evaluated. Proximal tubal blockages, which occur near the uterus, tend to have higher recanalization success rates compared to distal blockages. Following successful recanalization, pregnancy rates can be as high as 40-50% within a year of the procedure.4
Benefits of FTR Over IVF
Minimally Invasive and Cost-Effective
One of the most significant advantages of FTR over IVF is its minimally invasive nature. Unlike IVF, which involves multiple hormone injections, egg retrieval, and embryo transfer, FTR is a relatively straightforward outpatient procedure with no recovery time. This aspect makes it a more cost-effective option, avoiding the high costs associated with IVF cycles.5
Natural Conception
FTR enables natural conception, which can be psychologically and emotionally beneficial for many women and couples. By restoring the normal function of the reproductive system, it allows for conception without the need for assisted reproductive technologies.
Lower Risk of Multiple Pregnancies
IVF is associated with a higher risk of multiple pregnancies, which can lead to complications for both the mother and the babies. Since FTR promotes natural conception, it typically results in singleton pregnancies, thereby reducing the risks associated with multiple gestations.6
Considerations and Limitations
While FTR presents many benefits, it is essential to recognize certain limitations. The procedure may not be suitable for all types of tubal blockages, particularly those involving extensive scarring or damage to the fallopian tubes. Additionally, the success of FTR depends significantly on the expertise of the interventional radiologist performing the procedure. Contact our specialist to have your case reviewed as our doctor performs one of the largest number of FTR procedures.
Request an Appointment
Please note that although we strive to protect and secure our online communications, and use the security measures detailed in our Privacy Policy to protect your information, no data transmitted over the Internet can be guaranteed to be completely secure and no security measures are perfect or impenetrable. If you would like to transmit sensitive information to us, please contact us, without including the sensitive information, to arrange a more secure means of communication. By submitting this form you consent to receive text messages from CVI at the number provided. Msg & data rates may apply. Msg frequency varies. Unsubscribe at any time by replying STOP.
FTR Compared with IVF
Success Rate
IVF offers high success rates for couples with blocked fallopian tubes, with live birth rates per cycle ranging from 20-35%, depending on various factors such as age and embryo quality.7Â While FTR can restore natural fertility, the overall success and pregnancy rates may be lower compared to IVF in certain cases.
Treatment Complexity
IVF involves a complex series of steps, including ovarian stimulation, egg retrieval, fertilization, and embryo transfer. This process can be physically and emotionally demanding, and costly. In contrast, FTR is a simpler, less invasive procedure that can be completed in a single outpatient session.
Long-Term Outlook
IVF often requires multiple cycles to achieve pregnancy, each with associated costs and emotional stress. Additionally, the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and other complications is higher with IVF. FTR, being minimally invasive, has a lower risk profile and allows for natural conception cycles without ongoing medical intervention.8
What is the best fertility treatment for you?
Fallopian tube recanalization offers a promising alternative to IVF for women with blocked fallopian tubes. Its minimally invasive nature, cost-effectiveness, and potential for natural conception make it an attractive option for many couples. While FTR may not be suitable for all cases, it provides a viable solution for those with proximal tubal blockages, offering hope for achieving pregnancy without the need for more invasive and expensive treatments
1.) Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):e44-e50.
2.) Thurmond AS, Rosch J. Recanalization of the Fallopian Tube: Technique and Results. Radiology. 1987;164(3):661-664.
3.) Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenström U, Thorburn J, Janson PO. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: a prospective, randomized multicenter trial in Scandinavia on laparoscopic salpingectomy prior to IVF. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(11):2762-2769.
4.) Thurmond AS, Semchyshyn S, Gosink BB, et al. Fallopian tube catheterization: results and factors affecting outcome. Radiology. 2000;214(2):341-346.
5.) Tararbit K, Lelong N, Thieulin AC, et al. The risk for four specific birth defects associated with assisted reproductive techniques: a population-based evaluation. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(2):367-374.
6.) Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Vale L, Templeton A. In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4:CD003357.
7.) SART. 2018 Clinic Summary Report. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Available at: https://www.sart.org
8.) Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Complications of ovarian stimulation in ART. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5 Suppl):S95-S96.
