Back to Search Results


Proximal Tubal Occlusion

Author: Daniel R. Grow, MD

Editor: Sireesha Reddy, MD

Registered users can also download a PDF or listen to a podcast of this Pearl.
Log in now, or create a free account to access bonus Pearls features.

Proximal tubal occlusion is a common finding on hysterosalpingogram, occurring in up to 15% of studies. The occlusion is seen at the utero-tubal junction, where radiographic contrast fails to enter the isthmic fallopian tube. In a high proportion of cases, the proximal occlusion may be functional. Occlusion is an important finding because tubal peristalsis is necessary for gamete transport. The interstitial portion of the fallopian tube is a complex region anatomically where the myometrium of the uterus transitions into the three layers of muscle that make up the fallopian tube. Instrumentation of the uterus during the HSG procedure often leads to bilateral tubal spasm and non-filling of the tubes. However, the occlusion may be due to a number of pathologic conditions such as acute or chronic salpingitis, salpingitis isthmica nodosa, cornual fibroids, pelvic adhesive disease, endometritis, prior ectopic pregnancy, and adenomyosis. SIS detects the accumulation of fluid in the pelvis by ultrasound as evidence of tubal patency, but the false positive rate for the diagnosis of tubal occlusion may exceed that of HSG.

Many techniques have been described to overcome tubal occlusion. These include transcervical tubal cannulation by fluoroscopy, simultaneous hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, transcervical balloon tuboplasty, falloposcopy, and saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS). All of these methods have some utility, but most require anesthesia and significant experience.

The simplest way to confirm the presence of pathologic proximal tubal occlusion may be to repeat the HSG a month later. In a study of 40 patients with proximal tubal occlusion seen on the initial examination, repeat HSG demonstrated patency in 60% of cases. HSG requires no anesthesia, minimal lost time from work, and may be the best approach to evaluate for tubal patency. It does require some operator skill, as it is possible for factors such as excessive uterine manipulation, cold contrast, or intrauterine trauma to precipitate tubal spasm and temporary occlusion of the isthmic region of the fallopian tube.

Office hysteroscopy is not clinically useful. Three-dimensional ultrasound alone can help detect the presence of fibroids, but does not assess tubal patency.

If it is confirmed that the fallopian tubes are occluded, in vitro fertilization is often the best treatment option. Pregnancy rates after IVF for tubal disease are age-related, but the nationally reported live birth rate per cycle for patients under age 35 is approximately 40% (SART).

Further Reading:

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Committee opinion: role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2012 Mar;97(3):539-45. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.031. Epub 2012 Jan 29. PMID: 22285747.

Dessole S1, Meloni GB, Capobianco G, et al. A second hysterosalpingography reduces the use of selective technique for treatment of a proximal tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril. 2000 May;73(5):1037-9.

Initial approval: November 2013; Revised: September 2018. Reaffirmed March 2020. Revised November 2023


********** Notice Regarding Use ************

The Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inc. (“SASGOG”) is committed to accuracy and will review and validate all Pearls on an ongoing basis to reflect current practice.

This document is designed to aid practitioners in providing appropriate obstetric and gynecologic care. Recommendations are derived from major society guidelines and high-quality evidence when available, supplemented by the opinion of the author and editorial board when necessary. It should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed.

Variations in practice may be warranted when, in the reasonable judgment of the treating clinician, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources, or advances in knowledge or technology. SASGOG reviews the articles regularly; however, its publications may not reflect the most recent evidence. While we make every effort to present accurate and reliable information, this publication is provided “as is” without any warranty of accuracy, reliability, or otherwise, either express or implied. SASGOG does not guarantee, warrant, or endorse the products or services of any firm, organization, or person. Neither SASGOG nor its respective officers, directors, members, employees, or agents will be liable for any loss, damage, or claim with respect to any liabilities, including direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages, incurred in connection with this publication or reliance on the information presented.

Copyright 2023 The Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inc. All rights reserved.  No re-print, duplication or posting allowed without prior written consent.

Back to Search Results