Call box
Infertility Specialists
Infertility Specialists

Infertility Specialists at CIGC

Many factors can affect fertility, but GYN conditions like fibroids and endometriosis are often major contributors to infertility. CIGC infertility specialists are experts in detecting these types of conditions and then treating them to get you started on your fertility journey.

Whether you’re trying to conceive naturally or planning to undergo a round of in vitro fertilization (IVF), existing GYN conditions can disrupt your goal of a healthy pregnancy. Because in vitro fertilization is often a large expense both financially and emotionally, finding a specialist to treat any GYN conditions before undergoing IVF can give you the best chance of a successful pregnancy with the first cycle.

Surgery doesn’t have to be scary. At CIGC, our specialists focus 100% on minimally invasive procedures using techniques that involve only two small incisions and a fast recovery. They provide every patient with a personalized treatment plan that puts them on the right path to fertility — so you can start the family of your dreams sooner.

What Is Infertility?

Infertility is the inability to conceive a baby. Forty percent of cases of infertility are due to male factors, such as low sperm count, malformed sperm or poor sperm motility. Forty percent of cases are due to female factors such as blocked fallopian tubes, abnormalities with the uterus or cervix or problems with ovulation or egg quality. In 20% of cases, no cause can be found.

Female factors of infertility can be caused by GYN conditions like fibroids or endometriosis, which can interfere with regular functioning of reproductive organs in the body. For example, a fibroid located in the lining of the uterus may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, or an endometriosis lesion may cover the opening of a fallopian tube. For some women with these conditions, infertility may be the only symptom they experience.

Infertility Treatment Options

Treatment for infertility will vary based on its cause. For women with fibroids that are interfering with fertility, a myomectomy is recommended.

The CIGC-exclusive LAAM® myomectomy is the procedure of choice for those who wish to remove fibroids while retaining future fertility options. The LAAM technique allows surgical specialists to take out fibroids of all sizes and locations in a minimally invasive procedure that leaves the uterus intact and ready to carry a baby.

For those with infertility as a result of endometriosis, minimally invasive endometriosis excision surgery using the innovative DualPortGYN® technique is the best option. CIGC specialists use the technique to thoroughly remove endometriosis lesions through two small incisions. Patients typically recover in one to two weeks.

Speak with an expert about the best treatment for your needs.

Get Started

Why CIGC?

Gynecological Surgery Center of Distinction

CIGC is recognized as a Center of Excellence in Minimally Invasive Surgery by the the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL).

aagl-logo

Advanced Techniques

CIGC’s DualPortGYN and LAAM techniques are minimally invasive surgical methods that allow patients to avoid the hospital. These advanced techniques are performed on an outpatient basis so patients can return home the same day.

Compared to open, robotic and standard laparoscopic techniques for GYN surgeries, CIGC surgical specialists use fewer and smaller incisions to minimize scarring and speed up recovery, resulting in lower complication rates. Our goal is to get you back to your life as soon as possible, so you can focus on what’s important — planning for the family of your dreams.

DualPortGYN Procedure Standard Laparoscopic Robotic Open
Length of Procedure 30 min–1 Hour1 2–3 Hours2,3,4 2–3 Hours2,3,9 1–2 Hours3,9
Number of Incisions 2 (5 mm)1 4 (5 mm)5 3–7 (8–12 mm)1,10 1 Large (10–15 cm)12,13
Hospital Stay 0 Days1 0–1 Day1,6,7 1–2 Days7,11 3 Days3,7
Recovery Time About 1 Week1 Up to 3 Weeks8 Up to 6 Weeks1 Up to 8 Weeks8,14
LAAM Procedure Standard Laparoscopic Robotic Open
Length of Procedure 74-90min1 107-124min1 159-252min1 229-275min1
Number of Incisions 21 3–45,6 4–58,10 1 x 10–15 cm13,14
Max Number of Fibroids Removed 1031 181 131 651
Hospital Stay 0 Days1 1 Day14 1 Day4,11 2–3 Days4,11
Recovery Time 10–14 Days1 Up to 3 Weeks7,17 Up to 3 Weeks12 Up to 8 Weeks10,15,16
Conversion to Open Surgery 0.7%1 22.9%1 8.2%1 N/A

Success Stories

Hear from patients who have had successful pregnancies after surgery at CIGC: 

“My mother, my husband, my sister, my mother-in-law — anyone who had a stake in me getting pregnant — all started doing research and talking to friends. Two separate sources recommended CIGC. Finding a more convenient, less invasive approach was the perfect solution at the right time.” – Raynelle
Hear More from Raynelle

“I look over to my son Landon right now tearing up and smiling. I am truly honored to share my story to help other women have hope. We are beyond blessed with a beautiful healthy baby boy.” -Janelle
Hear More from Janelle

“I never shared anything about my infertility journey with anyone in real life. Now that I have my two beautiful babies, it is much easier for me to talk about it.” -Bela
Hear More from Bela

Our Doctors

The physicians at The Center for Innovative GYN Care® (CIGC) are trained to identify what may be causing an individual case of infertility. If a GYN condition is diagnosed, our specialists are experts in treating the condition while preserving the uterus and maintaining fertility. Women travel from all around the world for minimally invasive surgery with our GYN specialty surgeons.

Laparoscopic GYN Surgeon
Laparoscopic GYN Surgeon
Laparoscopic GYN Surgeon
Laparoscopic GYN Surgeon
Nurse Practitioner

Our Centers

Our infertility specialists perform their advanced procedures at ambulatory surgery centers. These centers are not attached to a hospital, meaning fertility patients can have outpatient surgery and go home that same day. With convenient locations near major cities like Washington, D.C., and New York City, each center is fully set up with state-of-the-art equipment and staffed with friendly, compassionate employees who are honored to be part of your fertility journey.

We follow CDC guidelines to ensure the enhanced cleanliness and safety of each center. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we are offering telemedicine consultations in addition to in-person appointments to discuss the treatment options that are available to you.

REFERENCES

DualPortGYN Chart:
  1. Danilyants N, MacKoul P, Baxi R, van der Does LQ, Haworth LR. Value-based assessment of hysterectomy approaches. JOGR. 2018.
  2. Pasic et al. Comparing Robot-Assisted with Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Impact on Cost and Clinical Outcomes. JMIG. 2010 17 (6): 730-738
  3. Landeen LB, Bell MC, Hubert HB, Bennis LY, Knutsen-Larson SS, Seshadri-Kreaden U. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. South Dakota Medicine 2011; 64(6): 197-199
  4. Drahonovsky J., Haakova L., Otcenasek M., Krofta L., Kucera E., and Feyereisl J.: A prospective randomized comparison of vaginal hysterectomy, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease. EJOGRB 2010; 148: pp. 172-176
  5. Einarsson, J. I., & Suzuki, Y. (2009). Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: 10 steps toward a successful procedure. Reviews in obstetrics & gynecology, 2(1), 57-64.
  6. Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. AJOG. 2013;208(5):368.e361–367.
  7. Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Shah N, Einarsson JI. Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies. JSLS. 2012;16(4):519-24.
  8. Aarts JWM, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BWJ, Kluivers KB. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD003677.
  9. Schmitt, J. J., Carranza Leon, D. A., Occhino, J. A., Weaver, A. L., Dowdy, S. C., Bakkum-Gamez, J. N., Pasupathy, K. S., Gebhart, J. B. (2017). Determining Optimal Route of Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: Clinical Decision Tree Algorithm. Obstetrics and gynecology, 129(1), 130-138.
  10. Mayo Clinic
  11. Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. AJOG. 2013;208(5):368.e361–367.
  12. Yeung P, Bolden C et al. Patient Preferences of Cosmesis for Abdominal Incisions in Gynecologic Surgery. JMIG. 2013; 20(1): 79-84
  13. Jones, H. W., III, & Rock, J. A. (2015). Te Linde’s operative gynecology (Eleventh edition). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.
  14. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK.
LAAM Chart:
  1. Paul MacKoul, MD, FACOG, Rupen Baxi, MD, FACOG, Natalya Danilyants, MD, FACOG, Louise Q. van der Does, PhD, Leah R. Haworth, BSN, RN, Nilofar Kazi, BS. Laparoscopic-Assisted Myomectomy with Bilateral Uterine Artery Occlusion/Ligation. JMIG. 2019.
  2. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, et al. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. AJOG, 2009;201:566.e1-5.
  3. Sangha R, Eisenstein D, George A, Munkarah A, Wegienka G. Comparison of surgical outcomes for robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared to abdominal myomectomy. JMIG, 2010; 17(Suppl):S108.
  4. Barakat et al. Robotic-Assisted, Laparoscopic, and Abdominal Myomectomy: A Comparison of Surgical Outcomes. 2011; 117(2): 256-266.
  5. Rossetti, A., Sizzi, O., Chiarotti, F., & Florio, G. (2007). Developments in techniques for laparoscopic myomectomy. JSLS. 11(1), 34-40.
  6. Seinera et al. Laparoscopic myomectomy: indications, surgical technique and complications. Human Reproduction vol.12 no.9 pp.1927–1930, 1997.
  7. Alessandri, Franco et al. Randomized study of laparoscopic versus minilaparotomic myomectomy for uterine myomas. JMIG. 2006; 13(2):92-97.
  8. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S, Ransom SB. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. JMIG. 2007;14:698–705.
  9. Sangha R, Eisenstein D, George A, Munkarah A,Wegienka G. Comparison of surgical outcomes for robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared to abdominal myomectomy. JMIG. 2010;17(Suppl):S108.
  10. Asmar J, Even M, Carbonnel M, Goetgheluck J, Revaux A and Ayoubi JM (2015) Myomectomy by robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery: results at Foch Hospital, Paris. Front. Surg. 2:40,
  11. Gobern JM, Rosemeyer CJ, Barter JF, Steren AJ. Comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy in a community hospital. JSLS. 2013;17(1):116-20.
  12. Mayo Clinic
  13. Yeung P, Bolden C et al. Patient Preferences of Cosmesis for Abdominal Incisions in Gynecologic Surgery. JMIG. 2013; 20(1): 79-84,
  14. Jones, H. W., III, & Rock, J. A. (2015). Te Linde’s operative gynecology (Eleventh edition). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.
  15. MyHealth.Alberta.Ca
  16. Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
  17. UNC Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology