IVF Rates vs. Tubal Reversal Pregnancy Statistics - Who Wins?

Do you know the IVF rates for a successful pregnancy? Do you know them for actual live births? How about the pregnancy statistics for tubal reversal? Have you ever wondered how the two compare, IVF vs. tubal reversal?

While I usually don't start an article with so many questions, it seemed the best way to get your attention regarding the facts. Many women and their doctors think there is only one real option regarding pregnancy after tubal ligation and that is IVF. However, tubal reversal is a very real option and probably a better one for most women. Not only is it less costly, but the cumulative effect of successful pregnancies is higher.

Recently the Chapel Hill Tubal Reversal Center conducted a study of over 5000 women who had been their patients in the previous 8 years. Pertinent data was collected to provide some very real pregnancy statistics, something that had never been done. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published a report on IVF rates and associated questions, they hadn't done the same for tubal reversal.

You can check out the study results on the CHTRC website for yourself and see how the two compare. It certainly is easier than using the information available on line from the CDC for IVF rates. There are charts available that break the patients up by age groups just as the CDC study did and then compares the results. Charts make it easier to see and compare.

From the CDC study itself, you can see that only 36% of IVF cycles result in a pregnancy. However, only about 30% actually result in a live birth.

The overall pregnancy statistics show that tubal reversal resulted in a 66% pregnancy rate. While there are three major factors in determining the success rate of tubal reversal, since the CDC study used only age as its factor (the other factors don't matter to IVF), let's look at the live birth rate by age from the CHTRC study.

If you are 40 or over, your chances of a live birth are about 33%. The IVF rates for this age group are about 15%. However, if you are under 30, the live birth rate for tubal reversal is 55%. The IVF rates for under 30 women is less than 43%. However, you face a much higher risk of a multiple birth with IVF if you are under 35. These figures come from the CDC's ART report on their cdc.gov website.

As mentioned earlier, the cumulative effect of a tubal reversal is better than IVF. Where tubal reversal surgery is a onetime paid event after which you can try over and over again to get pregnant as many times as you wish, for IVF you must pay for each cycle if it becomes necessary to have another cycle in order to get pregnant. From the above statistics, you can see that is a very likely need. Each additional unsuccessful cycle means you're likely to not get pregnant the next time. That's from the CDC report. And the cost is there each time making IVF on the whole very expensive.

So do your own research and check out the pregnancy statistics on the Chapel Hill Tubal Reversal Center website. You can even go dig the IVF rates out of the CDC's report if you wish or simply check out what is provided in the CHTRC study results. Now which alternative do you think is better?