Open Access

Transvaginal access: a safe technique for tubo-ovarian exploration in infertility? Review of the literature

Gynecological SurgeryEndoscopic Imaging and Allied Techniques20085:374

Received: 25 October 2007

Accepted: 17 January 2008

Published: 13 February 2008


Transvaginal laparoscopy offers an accurate and minimally invasive method for the exploration of the female pelvis in patients with infertility. Access to the pouch of Douglas is gained through a simple needle puncture technique of the posterior fornix using a pre-warmed watery solution as the distension medium. A review of recently published papers and our own experience illustrate the safety of the technique. Transvaginal laparoscopy can be considered as one of the first and safest examples of the recent developments in natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES).


Transvaginal laparoscopyComplicationsSafetyInfertility


Transvaginal laparoscopy is today accepted as a feasible technique for the investigation of female fertility with the capacity to predict spontaneous ongoing pregnancy comparable to that of laparoscopy. The technique uses saline as the distension medium and is generally performed in an outpatient setting under intravenous sedation or local anesthesia [1, 2].

Transvaginal access has previously been used in culdoscopy, as introduced by Decker and Cherry [3] in the US and Palmer in Europe [4], but was abandoned in the 1970s, particularly when studies suggested that the transabdominal access was superior over transvaginal access for the performance of tubal sterilization [5, 6]. Recently, the Editorial Board of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists [7] expressed the fear that, after transvaginal access, 1% of infertility patients would develop peritonitis and pelvic abscess. The fear was based on the statement that vaginal tubal sterilization carried with it a 1% abscess rate when performed in an operating room, even with the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. It is questionable on which data this statement has been based and whether it is supported by old and recent data.

Palmer [4] admitted that, after posterior colpotomy, pelvic abscesses are possible and 2% of the sterilizations fail because of fistulization of the ampulla. Whitaker [8] reviewed a series of 585 tubal ligations by colpotomy within a private-practice setting in the US. In his series, no vaginal cuff hematoma and cuff abscess requiring incision and drainage occurred. Gupta et al. [9] analyzed a series of 608 women admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Chandigarth, India. No prophylactic antibiotics were given and follow-ups occurred at regular intervals up to 12 months. Two cases of serious complications, including one abscess with fistula and one pelvic peritonitis, occurred. In a review of 50,151 laparoscopies, Brosens et al. [10] reported that diagnostic laparoscopy was associated with a 0.08% risk of bowel injury. However, up to 15% of the injuries are not diagnosed during laparoscopy and one of five cases of delayed diagnosis resulted in death [1113].

In a multinational retrospective survey in 2001, we reported on a series of 3,667 procedures of transvaginal pelvic endoscopies in infertile patients without obvious pelvic pathology [14]. Full-thickness bowel injury occurred in 24 (0.65%) procedures. After an initial experience of 50 procedures, the prevalence of bowel injury was 0.25%. However, all injuries were diagnosed during the procedure and 22 (92%) were managed conservatively without consequences. Both the type of lesion and the risk of delayed diagnosis suggest that the transvaginal access in laparoscopy is associated with a minor risk of bowel injury that, under strict conditions, is treated conservatively. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the risk of bowel injury during transvaginal laparoscopy in recent publications.

Survey design

Using the Pubmed and Scopus searches, we traced 27 original papers on diagnostic transvaginal pelvic endoscopy published between 2000 and 2007 in peer-reviewed journals. We excluded recent publications from the pioneering centers to exclude overlapping data and to include results from new centers with their initial experience. With regard to publications in languages such as Japanese and Polish, data were collected from the available English abstract.


Transvaginal laparoscopy is performed using a combined system of a Veress needle and trocar with a 3.9-mm outside diameter and a semi-rigid endoscope of 2.7 or 2.9 mm, as developed by Karl Storz GmbH & Co., Tuttlingen, Germany [1520]. Fertiloscopy is defined as the combination in one investigation of transvaginal hydropelviscopy, dye test, optional salpingoscopy, and hysteroscopy [21]. The slightly different instrumentation as developed by Soprane S.A., Lyon, France, has an outer diameter of 6 mm.


The 27 publications on transvaginal laparoscopy and fertiloscopy represented a total of 2,843 procedures (Table 1). Access was achieved according to 11 publications, each reporting on more than 50 procedures between 89% and 100%, with a mean of 94%. Access failed in 6% of the cases and the reasons included retroverted uterus, dense adhesions, adnexal mass in the cul-de-sac, nodular retrocervical endometriosis, and obesity.
Table 1

Review of recently published papers on transvaginal laparoscopy






1. van Tetering et al. [2]




2 rectum/2 bleed/1 susp. PID

2. Mgaloblishvili et al. [22]




3. Sobek et al. [23]




2 bowel

4. Kowalczyk et al. [24]





5. El-Shalakany et al. [25]





6. Nohuz et al. [26]




2 bowel, 2 hematoma, 1 PID

7. Suzuki et al. [27]




8. Zeyneloğlu et al. [28]





9. Tanos et al. [29] (five centers)




1 bowel, 1 bleed

10. Hu et al. [30]




11. Kalliola [31]




1 bleed, 1 bradycard

12. Shibahara et al. [32]




13. Abad et al. [33]





14. Moore et al. [34]




1 retrofl. uterus

15. Fujiwara et al. [35]





16. Watrelot et al. [36]




1 rectal, 1 post wall

17. Casa et al. [37]





18. Jónsdóttir and Lundorff [38]





19. Cicinelli et al. [39]





20. Moore and Cohen [40]





21. Nawroth et al. [41]





22. Sobkiewicz et al. [42]





23. Dechaud et al. [43]




1 post wall

24. Shibahara et al. [44]





25. Takeuchi et al. [45]




1 rectal serosa

26. Darai et al. [46]




1 rectal

27. Bajzak et al. [47]




No major complication, such as life-threatening hemorrhage, bowel injury requiring surgery, sepsis, or abscess formation, occurred. Minor complications occurred in 21 (0.74%) patients (Table 2). These complications included bowel injury in 10 cases (0.35%). All were treated conservatively with antibiotics. Hemorrhage requiring compression or a stitch was reported in six cases, inadvertent puncture of the posterior uterine wall in three cases, and suspected pelvic infection treated with antibiotics in two cases. No long-term or delayed complications were reported.
Table 2

Complications of transvaginal laparoscopy

Major (sepsis, abscess, life-threatening bleeding)



bowel perforation (antibiotics, without consequence)

10 (0.35%)

hemorrhage (treated with stitch)


puncture of the posterior uterine wall


suspected PID (treated with antibiotics)



21 (0.74%)

Prevention of complications

Previous research has shown that, after initial experience with 50 procedures, the risk of bowel injury decreases significantly. The findings of our previous survey [14] clearly demonstrated a decrease in incidence in bowel damage from 1.3% in the first 50 cases to 0.25% once more experience had been gained. Also, in their series, Verhoeven et al. [48] reported a reduced incidence of 0.1% once more than 50 procedures have been performed. However, even in experienced hands, injury during blind access cannot be fully avoided. Sobek et al. [23] recommended ultrasonographically guided transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy to increase the safety of the procedure and decrease the difficulty of access. With this method, no bowel injury occurred in a consecutive series of 460 patients. Mgaloblishvili et al. [22] proposed to proceed first with hysteroscopy using saline for partial filling of the pouch of Douglas, followed by sonohysterosalpingography to clearly visualize and assess the fornix and the pouch of Douglas. Cancellation for transvaginal pelvic endoscopy included:
  • Complete obliteration of the pouch of Douglas

  • Thickening of the posterior fornix by dilated vessels, retro-cervical endometriosis, or adipose tissue

  • Dense adhesions in the pouch of Douglas

  • Presence of organs such as one or both ovaries, fallopian tubes, intestinal loops, myomatous nodule, or retroverted uterus

  • Bilateral hydrosalpinges

In a series of 827 women, cancellation was indicated in six cases after hysteroscopy and in 135 cases after sonohysterosalpingography. No complications occurred in the remaining 702 patients.


The current findings support the conclusion of the previous report by Gordts et al. [14] that transvaginal access using a small-diameter endoscope for the exploration of the pelvis in infertility is a safe procedure. In contrast with transabdominal access in standard laparoscopy, delayed diagnosis of bowel injury resulting in sepsis or death has not been described. Moreover, bowel injury caused by the small-diameter instrument used in transvaginal pelvic endoscopy can be treated expectantly, although antibiotics are administered in most cases. This, however, will not exclude that inadvertent manipulation may cause a large lesion that requires surgical repair. In the absence of leakage, expectant management with the prophylactic use of antibiotics is apparently justified.

It is unclear as to which literature the statement by Hunt et al. [7] that culdoscopic access is associated with a 1% risk of sepsis has been based. Review of the early literature learns that the current findings on the risks of transvaginal access in women with infertility are in full agreement with the older literature on the risks of diagnostic culdoscopy. Riva et al. [49] published a consecutive series of 2,850 cases with 3.7% failure of access and a complication rate of 1.4%. Eleven recto-sigmoid perforations occurred (Table 3). The lesions were extra-peritoneal and were closed immediately through the colpotomy site, and the culdoscopy procedure was discontinued. Follow-up examination revealed no complications referable to these recto-sigmoid injuries. Diamond [50] used improved instrumentation and brighter illumination with fiber optics and published in 1978 a continuous series of 4,000 outpatient procedures of diagnostic culdoscopy in infertility. In his consecutive series of 4,000 culdoscopies performed between 1968 and 1978, no death occurred. Bleeding was prolonged and required suturing in six patients. Pelvic infection occurred in three cases, despite the routine use of antibiotics, and one patient developed a pelvic abscess. Inadvertent punctures were made into the rectum in five cases, all of them occurring in the first five years of the series and none later. None of the patients required hospitalization or laparotomy; all were treated with antibiotics and conservative therapy. No inadvertent puncture of other viscera occurred. In four patients, the puncture of ovarian cysts that had prolapsed into the cul-de-sac occurred. Diamond [50] concluded that, with proper preparation and organization, diagnostic culdoscopy could be carried out as a routine procedure in any adequately equipped outpatient facility in or outside the hospital. It is safe, effective, and rapid, taking an experienced physician and team no more than 10 or 15 min to perform. He proposed that outpatient culdoscopy should be returned to gynecologic training programs. With regard to the available data in the literature, the statement of the Editorial Board of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists is, therefore, astonishing. We would agree with Hunt et al. [7] that a thousand, or even several thousand, cases are required to make a statement on the safety of a new technique. The world literature during the last 40 years includes many thousands of procedures and has consistently endorsed the safety of transvaginal access in diagnostic pelvic endoscopy in women with infertility.
Table 3

Bowel injuries and infections during transvaginal access in diagnostic pelvic endoscopy





Current review




Gordts et al. 2001




Diamond 1978




Riva et al. 1960






50 (0.37%)

1 (0.007%)

In infertility exploration, transvaginal laparoscopy is one of the first applications of the recent developments in natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) [51]. Considering the previously discussed results, the technique should deserve a more widespread use as an ambulatory diagnostic tool in the exploration of the infertile patient.

Authors’ Affiliations

Leuven Institute for Fertility and Embryology


  1. Gordts S, Campo R, Rombauts L, Brosens I (1998) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy as an outpatient procedure for infertility investigation. Hum Reprod 13:99–103PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. van Tetering EA, Bongers MY, Wiegerinck MA, Mol BW, Koks CA (2007) Prognostic capacity of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy to predict spontaneous pregnancy. Hum Reprod 22:1091–1094PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Decker A, Cherry TH (1944) Culdoscopy: a new method in the diagnosis of pelvic disease—preliminary report. Am J Surg 64:40–44View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Palmer R (1974) Les explorations fonctionelles gynécologiques, 2nd edn. Masson, Paris, pp 226–228Google Scholar
  5. Koetsawang S, Bhiraleus P, Rachawat D, Kiriwat O (1976) Comparison of culdoscopic and laparoscopic tubal sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 124:601–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. McCann MF, Cole LP (1978–1979) Risks and benefits of culdoscopic female sterilization. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 16(3):242–247Google Scholar
  7. Hunt RB, Phillips JM, Levy BS, Michels L, Loffer FD, Brill AI, Cohen BM, Cooper JM, Dubuisson JB, Gomel V, Hasson HM, Hidlebaugh DA, Koninckx PR, Luciano AA, Olive DL, Paraiso MFR, Parker WH, Zupi E (2002) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 9(3):238View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Whitaker CF Jr (1979) Tubal ligation by colpotomy incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 134:885–888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta I, Bajwa H, Singh P, Gupta AN, Devi PK (1979) Morbidity following vaginal tubal ligation. Indian J Med Res 69:770–775PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brosens I, Gordon A, Campo R, Gordts S (2003) Bowel injury in gynecologic laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10:9–13PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Janssen FW, Kapiteyn K, Trimbos-Kemper T, Hermans J, Trimbos JB (1997) Complications of laparoscopy: a prospective multicentre observational study. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol 104:595–600Google Scholar
  12. Brosens I, Gordon A (2001) Bowel injuries during gynaecological laparoscopy: a multinational survey. Gynaecol Endosc 10:141–145View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Garry R (1999) Towards evidence-based laparoscopic entry techniques: clinical problems and dilemmas. Gynaecol Endosc 8:315–326View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordts S, Watrelot A, Campo R, Brosens I (2001) Risk and outcome of bowel injury during transvaginal pelvic endoscopy. Fertil Steril 76:1238–1241PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordts S, Campo R, Brosens I (2000) Office transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy for early diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis and adhesions. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7(1):45–49PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Verhoeven H, Gianaroli L, Brosens J, Brosens I (2002) Investigation of the infertile couple: a one-stop outpatient endoscopy-based approach. Hum Reprod 17(7):1684–1687PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Gordts S, Campo R, Brosens I (2002) Experience with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy for reconstructive tubo-ovarian surgery. Reprod Biomed Online 4(Suppl 3):72–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Brosens IA, Campo R, Gordts S (1999) Office hydrolaparoscopy for the diagnosis of endometriosis and tubal infertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 11:371–377PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Campo R, Gordts S, Rombauts L, Brosens I (1999) Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy in infertility. Fertil Steril 71(6):1157–1160PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Campo R, Gordts S, Rombauts L, Brosens I (1999) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy: a possible office procedure. Infertil Reprod Med Clin North Am 10(1):161–176Google Scholar
  21. Watrelot A, Dreyfus JM, Andine JP (1999) Evaluation of the performance of fertiloscopy in 160 consecutive infertile patients with no obvious pathology. Hum Reprod 14:707–711PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Mgaloblishvili I, Mgaloblishvili M, Osidze K, Beria N (2007) Complex one-stop investigation of infertility: transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy. Gynecol Surg 4(2):79–83View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Sobek A Jr, Vodiãka J, Sobek A (2007) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy and ultrasonographically guided transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy—two outpatient methods of pelvis examination [Transvaginální hydrolaparoskopie a ultrazvukovû asistovaná hydrolaparoskopie—dvû ambulantní metody vy‰etfiení Ïenské pánve]. Ceska Gynekol 72(1):11–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kowalczyk D, Guzikowski W, Maczka M, Kubicki J (2006) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) in diagnosing infertility. Ceska Gynekol 71(5):408–410PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. El-Shalakany A, Ismaeel A-M, Ali MS, Mahmoud HA (2006) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy: an advance or a gimmick!. Middle East Fertil Soc J 11(1):53–58Google Scholar
  26. Nohuz E, Pouly JL, Bolandard F, Rabischong B, Jardon K, Cotte B, Rivoire C, Mage G (2006) Fertiloscopy: Clermont-Ferrand’s experiment [Fertiloscopie: l’expérience clermontoise]. Gynecol Obstetr Fertil 34(10):894–899View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Suzuki T, Shibahara H, Hirano Y, Fujiwara H, Takamizawa S, Suzuki M (2005) Feasibility and clinical significance of endoluminal assessment by transvaginal salpingoscopy during transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy in infertile women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(5):420–425PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Zeyneloğlu BH, Esinler I, Öktem M (2005) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy [Ofis ortaminda tek as,amada kadin i˙nfertilitesinin degˇerlendirilmesi: Transvajinal hidrolaparoskopi; Bas,kent Üniversitesi deneyimi]. Jinekoloji ve Obstetrik Dergisi 19(3):147–152Google Scholar
  29. Tanos V, Bigatti G, Paschopoulos M, Rosales M, Magro B, Gianaroli L, Ioannou D, Avgoustatos F, Lolis DE (2005) Transvaginal endoscopy: new technique evaluating female infertility. Three Mediterranean countries’ experiences. Gynecol Surg 2:241–243View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu XL, Xu HL (2004) Study on combined transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy and hysteroscopy in patients with infertility. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 39(8):508–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalliola T (2003) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy—a new method for diagnosing genital diseases [Transvaginaalinen hydrolaparoskopia—synnytinelinten uusi tutkimusmenetelmä]. Duodecim 119(16):1546–1551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shibahara H, Takamizawa S, Hirano Y, Ayustawati, Takei Y, Fujiwara H, Tamada S, Sato I (2003) Relationships between Chlamydia trachomatis antibody titers and tubal pathology assessed using transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy in infertile women. Am J Reprod Immunol 50(1):7–12PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Abad A, Payá V, Diago V, Ródenas JJ, Costa S, Coloma F, Gilabert Aguílar J (2003) Transvaginal mini-hydrolaparoscopy: a new diagnostic method in sterility [La mini-hidrolaparascopia transvaginal: Un nuevo método diagnóstico en esterilidad]. Revista Iberoamericana de Fertilidad y Reproduccion Humaan 20:237–241Google Scholar
  34. Moore ML, Cohen M, Liu GY (2003) Experience with 109 cases of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10(2):282–285PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Fujiwara H, Shibahara H, Hirano Y, Suzuki T, Takamizawa S, Sato I (2003) Usefulness and prognostic value of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy in infertile women. Fertil Steril 79(1):186–189PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Watrelot A, Nisolle M, Chelli H, Hocke C, Rongières C, Racinet C (2003) Is laparoscopy still the gold standard in infertility assessment? A comparison of fertiloscopy versus laparoscopy in infertility. Results of an international multicentre prospective trial: the ‘FLY’ (Fertiloscopy–LaparoscopY) study. Hum Reprod 18:834–839PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Casa A, Sesti F, Marziali M, Piccione E (2002) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy vs. conventional laparoscopy for evaluating unexplained primary infertility in women. J Reprod Med Obstetr Gynecol 47:617–620Google Scholar
  38. Jónsdóttir K, Lundorff P (2002) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy: a new diagnostic tool in infertility investigation. Acta Obstetr Gynecol Scand 81:882–885View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Cicinelli E, Matteo M, Causio F, Schonauer LM, Pinto V, Galantino P (2001) Tolerability of the mini-pan-endoscopic approach (transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy and minihysteroscopy) versus hysterosalpingography in an outpatient infertility investigation. Fertil Steril 76(5):1048–1051PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Moore ML, Cohen M (2001) Diagnostic and operative transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy for infertility and pelvic pain. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 8:393–397PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Nawroth F, Foth D, Schmidt T, Römer T (2001) Results of a prospective comparative study of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy and chromolaparoscopy in the diagnostics of infertility. Gynecol Obstet Invest 52:184–188PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Sobkiewicz S, Palatyński A, Korczyński J (2001) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy [Przezpochwowa hydrolaparoskopia]. Ginekol Pol 72(5):385–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Dechaud H, Ali Ahmed S-A, Aligier N, Vergnes C, Hedon B (2001) Does transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy render standard diagnostic laparoscopy obsolete for unexplained infertility investigation? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 94:97–102PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Shibahara H, Fujiwara H, Hirano Y, Suzuki T, Obara H, Takamizawa S, Idei S, Sato I (2001) Usefulness of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy in investigating infertile women with Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Hum Reprod 16(8):1690–1693PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Takeuchi H, Sato Y, Nakano Y, Sakurai A, Kobori H, Mitsuhashi N (2001) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy for pelvic evaluation of infertility women: the compared study with laparoscopy. Japan J Fertil Steril 46(2):117–122Google Scholar
  46. Darai E, Dessolle L, Lecuru F, Soriano D (2000) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy compared with laparoscopy for the evaluation of infertile women: a prospective comparative blind study. Hum Reprod 15:2379–2382PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Bajzak KI, Winer WK, Lyons TL (2000) Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy, a new technique for pelvic assessment. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7:562–565PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Verhoeven H, Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Brosens I (2004) Role of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy in the investigation of female infertility: a review of 1,000 procedures. Gynecol Surg 1:191–193View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Riva HL, Andreson PS, Desrosiers JL, Breen JL (1961) Further experience with culdoscopy. An analysis of 2,850 cases. JAMA 178:873–877PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Diamond E (1978) Diagnostic culdoscopy in infertility: a study of 4000 outpatient procedures. J Reprod Med 21(1):23–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Bessler M, Stevens PD, Milone L, Parikh M, Fowler D (2007) Transvaginal laparoscopically assisted endoscopic cholecystectomy: a hybrid approach to natural orifice surgery. Gastrointest Endosc 66:1243–1245PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar


© Springer-Verlag 2008