The result of the Scandinavian multicentre study on salpingectomy prior to IVF has promoted a discussion on whether there is a risk of unnecessary salpingectomies being performed. We agree that physicians have to discriminate carefully between a hydrosalpinx that should be removed and one that is suitable for surgical repair. Tubal endoscopy is the most advanced tool for that purpose, while transvaginal ultrasound is not appropriate in selecting patients to undergo either salpingectomy or salpingostomy. The Scandinavian study showed that patients with hydrosalpinges which are large enough to be visible on ultrasound before ovarian stimulation, benefit from salpingectomy in terms of improved fertility outcome after IVF. The result of the study does not interfere with the management of distal tubal infertility in general, since it was concluded that not every woman with a large hydrosalpinx should undergo salpingectomy. Hydrosalpinges with preserved mucosa may be better treated with reconstructive surgery as primary treatment instead of salpingectomy and IVF. The latter option may, however, be the secondary treatment after failed conception and re-occlusion of the tubes. Unnecessary salpingectomies should, of course, not be performed and they may easily be avoided by appropriate evaluation of the tubal mucosa at laparoscopy before any final decision of salpingectomy is made. We do not see a major conflict: functional surgery to the tubes with healthy mucosa and salpingectomy to the dilated tubes that are visible on ultrasound and have a severely damaged mucosa.