Ectopic pregnancy is the most common cause of maternal death in early pregnancy and its incidence is rising. Most of the ectopicpregnancies occur in the young age group and subsequent fertility is an important issue. There is no consensus in the literatureregarding conservative laparoscopic versus radical treatment of tubal pregnancy in terms of future reproductive performance. Thereare no randomized controlled trials of sufficient power, and meta-analysis of studies has shown different results with different investigators.But in certain studies laparoscopic surgery has advantages over open surgery and results in higher rates of subsequent intrauterinepregnancies and a lower rate of ectopic pregnancy.Background: In the treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy (EP), laparoscopic surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment (CochraneDatabase 2007). In the absence of randomized data, the question as to whether surgical treatment should be performed eitherconservatively (salpingostomy) or radically (salpingectomy) in women with desire for future pregnancy is subject to ongoing debate (Molet al 2008).Since the first study demonstrated the potential effectiveness of salpingostomy, this treatment has been compared with salpingectomyin numerous nonrandomized studies (Stromme et al 1962, Mol et al 2008). Pooled data showed no beneficial effect of salpingostomy onintrauterine pregnancy (IUP) whereas there is an increased risk of repeat EP (Clausen 1996, Yao et al 1997, Mol et al 2008). Based onthese findings, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guideline advises salpingectomy as the preferred standardsurgical approach for tubal EP (RCOG 2004). However, there are good reasons to question this advice. Interpretation of the pooled datais troublesome, since many of the original studies failed to report essential details, e.g. time to pregnancy, presence of the desire forfuture pregnancy, and whether subsequent pregnancies occurred either spontaneously or after fertility treatment, such as in vitrofertilization (IVF). Only a few nonrandomized studies have taken these matters into account and came to different conclusions (Silva etal 1993, Job spira et al 1996, Mol et al 1998, Bouyer et al 2000, Bangsgaard et al 2003, Tahseen et al 2003, Mol et al 2008). The IUP rateswere higher and the time to an IUP was shorter after salpingostomy compared to salpingectomy. Especially in women with history ofbilateral tubal pathology, salpingostomy offered better IUP rates than salpingectomy, albeit at the cost of an increased risk for repeat EP(Silva et al 1993, Job spira et al 1996, Mol et al 1998, Bangsgaard et al 2003, Mol et al 2008). In women without history of tubal pathology,this benefit was less clear and also in these women there was an increased risk of repeat EP (Mol et al 1998, Mol et al 2008). In view ofthese data, it has been felt that the most effective type of surgery for women with a tubal EP in the presence of contralateral tubalpathology with desire for future pregnancy is salpingostomy. In women without contralateral tubal pathology, the most optimal surgicaltreatment is currently unknown.