Total bilateral salpingectomy versus partial bilateral salpingectomy for permanent sterilization during cesarean delivery

Feasibility, Safety, and Provider Perspectives of Bipolar Electrosurgical Cautery Device for (Opportunistic or Complete) Salpingectomy at the Time of Cesarean Delivery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to evaluate the use of a bipolar electrocautery device for complete salpingectomy at cesarean to improve procedure completion rates, operative time, and surgeon reported satisfaction as compared with standard bilateral tubal ligation (BTL) and suture-cut-tie salpingectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective cohort study of women undergoing planned, non-emergent cesarean with desired sterilization with complete salpingectomy utilizing a bipolar electrocautery device. Study patients were compared with historic controls from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of complete salpingectomy via suture-cut-tie method versus BTL conducted at our institution (SCORE trial, NCT02374827). Outcomes were compared with groups from the original RCT.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine women were consecutively enrolled (12/2018-11/2019) into the device arm of the study and compared with the original SCORE cohort (n = 40 BTL, n = 40 salpingectomy without a device). Salpingectomy performance with the bipolar electrocautery device was successfully completed in 100% (39/39) of enrolled women, with one device failure requiring the use of a second device, as compared with 95% (38/40) in the BTL (p = 0.49) and 67.5% (27/40) in salpingectomies without a device (p < 0.001). Mean operative time of sterilization procedure alone demonstrated device use as having the shortest operative time of all (device salpingectomy 5.0 ± 3.6 vs. no device 18.5 ± 8.3 minutes, p < 0.001; and vs. BTL 6.9 ± 5.0, p = 0.032). Mean sterilization procedure endoscopic band ligation (EBL) was demonstrated to be significantly different between each group, least amongst BTL followed by device (6.3 ± 4.8 vs. 8.4 ± 24.8, p < 0.001), and most by suture-cut-tie method (17.7 ± 14.3, p < 0.001 compared with device). Surgeon reported attitudes of complete salpingectomy performance in general practice outside an academic setting was greater with a device than without (79.5 vs. 35.3%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Use of a bipolar electrocautery device improved operative times and surgeon satisfaction for salpingectomy at cesarean over standard suture ligation. Device use improved surgeon reported outcomes and may improve incorporation of complete salpingectomy at cesarean.

KEY POINTS

· Electrocautery bipolar device use was safe at the time of salpingectomy during cesarean.. · Greater surgeon satisfaction occurs using a device than without.. · Decreased surgical time with device use is seen making the procedure equal to BTL..

Effect of salpingectomy versus tubal ligation on postoperative wound infection in patients: A meta-analysis

After several institutions recommended salpingectomy as opposed to tubal ligation, we attempted to perform meta-analysis to compare operative properties and rates of postoperative wound infections. There are no temporal or linguistic limitations to our search in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase. The search was carried out in September 2023. The database search identified 401 potential studies and five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Our study involved a comparison of salpingectomy with tube ligating in female patients who wanted to be sterilized. Our trial included at least one result of the wound and haemorrhage. The articles that did not qualify for inclusion or did not submit data, and those who did not answer questions were excluded. Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently by two authors using blinding. Conflicting decisions were settled by consensus. The Cochrane-recommended ROBINS-I instrument has been applied to evaluate the risk of bias in clinical trials and to establish the quality of inclusion. Two authors separately evaluated the risk of bias for each trial; differences were settled by consensus. There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of postoperative wound infections among those who had received salpingectomy or tubal ligation (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.18-1.20 p = 0.11). In the three trials, the risk of bleeding following the ligation of the fallopian tubes was lower than that of the salpingectomy group (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.21-1.30 p < 0.0001). From this information we have come to the conclusion that it is possible to give preference to tubal ligation for reduction of bleeding in suitable circumstances, and that the findings currently do not provide sufficient evidence for a reduction in the risk of postoperative wound infection.

A randomized controlled trial of 2 techniques of salpingectomy during cesarean delivery

BACKGROUND

Total salpingectomy during benign gynecologic surgery is recommended after completion of childbearing to reduce the risk of developing ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess operating time and complication rates of "traditional" salpingectomy using the "Knot and Cut" technique, compared with bipolar salpingectomy for sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a randomized controlled trial. Women undergoing planned cesarean delivery who desired sterilization were randomized to traditional salpingectomy or bipolar salpingectomy. The bipolar salpingectomy was performed using the LigaSure Precise. The primary outcome was the surgical time of the salpingectomy procedure. Secondary outcomes included total cesarean delivery time and associated bleeding parameters. We estimated that 42 patients would provide 80% power and a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 to identify a 10-minute difference in the primary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 26 women were randomized to bipolar salpingectomy and 25 to traditional salpingectomy. Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. Six procedures were converted from traditional to bipolar salpingectomy, and 2 traditional salpingectomies failed. The surgical time (16.16±9.53 vs 5.19±3.57 minutes; P<.001), estimated blood loss (928.08±414.66 mL vs 677.15±380.42 mL; P=.029), and need for blood transfusion (20% vs 0%; P=.016) were significantly greater in the traditional salpingectomy than in the bipolar salpingectomy group. The cesarean delivery time was similar (88.92±17.87 vs 88.23±19.85 minutes; P=.89). Hospitalization time was significantly longer following traditional salpingectomy than bipolar salpingectomy (5.24±2.27 vs 3.92±2.01 days; P=.034).

CONCLUSION

"Traditional" salpingectomy is associated with longer surgical and hospitalization time, and greater blood loss and risk of blood transfusion compared with "bipolar" salpingectomy. In practices in which "bipolar" salpingectomy is available, it should be preferred over alternative methods of salpingectomy.

Benefits and Risks of Bilateral Salpingectomy Compared With Standard Tubal Ligation During Cesarean Delivery for Permanent Postpartum Contraception

Importance

Ovarian cancer is the second most common gynecologic malignancy, but the most deadly female reproductive cancer in the United States. Epithelial ovarian cancer makes up approximately 90% of all cases and is responsible for more than 90% of ovarian cancer deaths. Elective salpingectomy has been shown to reduce ovarian cancer risk when performed at the time of a benign hysterectomy. Data regarding the risks and benefits of opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy performed at the time of cesarean delivery are limited.

Objective

We aim to review the current evidence regarding safety and benefits of opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery compared with bilateral tubal ligation.

Evidence Acquisition

Original research articles, review articles, and guidelines on contraception were reviewed.

Conclusions and Relevance

Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery is feasible and safe. Operative time may be increased up to 15 minutes for salpingectomy performed by suture ligation compared with standard tubal ligation. Women with a history of 3 or more cesarean deliveries are more likely to require an alternative procedure. It is important to counsel women that although opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy may significantly decrease the risk of ovarian cancer, it does not eliminate the risk entirely.

Efficacy and safety of sterilisation procedures to reduce the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review comparing salpingectomy with tubal ligation

PURPOSE

The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate current literature comparing salpingectomy for sterilisation with tubal ligation, regarding the effectiveness and safety, and assess the certainty of evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. Randomised (RCT) and observational studies were included. Articles were quality assessed and data extracted by two independent authors. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

Of 2020 articles, 17 were included. No study investigated the risk of EOC. No difference in anti-Müllerian hormone was reported in one RCT at caesarean section (CS). Two cohort studies evaluated ovarian function with surrogate measures and found no difference at caesarean section. Complications did not differ but were inconsistently reported. Laparoscopic tubal ligation was 7 min faster (95% CI 3.8-10.5). Operative time at caesarean section was dependent on the use of surgical devices. Certainty of evidence was low or very low for all estimates, indicating knowledge gaps. Reliable safety data on salpingectomy for sterilisation is lacking, and there is no effectiveness data. Presently, women cannot be properly counselled regarding salpingectomy for sterilisation.

Paradigm shift from tubal ligation to opportunistic salpingectomy at cesarean delivery in the United States

BACKGROUND

Opportunistic salpingectomy is now recommended at the time of routine gynecologic surgery to reduce the risk of future ovarian cancer, and performance of opportunistic salpingectomy has increased markedly at the time of benign hysterectomy. Salpingectomy has also been suggested to be feasible at the time of cesarean delivery in women desiring sterilization; however, uptake has not been previously studied on a national level.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine recent population trends in the utilization and characteristics of salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a population-based retrospective observational study querying the National Inpatient Sample between October 2015 and December 2018. The primary outcome measure was the temporal trend of bilateral salpingectomy at cesarean delivery, assessed with linear segmented regression with log transformation utilizing 3-month time increments. The secondary outcome measures included patient characteristics associated with bilateral salpingectomy, assessed with a multinomial regression model, and surgical outcome (hemorrhage, blood transfusion, hysterectomy, and oophorectomy) at the time of bilateral salpingectomy vs bilateral tubal ligation, assessed with generalized estimating equation in a propensity score-matched model.

RESULTS

There were 3,813,823 women at the age of 15 to 49 years who had cesarean deliveries included, of whom 397,260 (10.4%) had bilateral salpingectomy and 203,400 (5.3%) had bilateral tubal ligation overall. During the time period studied, performance of bilateral salpingectomy among women undergoing cesarean delivery significantly increased from 4.6% to 13.2% (odds ratio for the fourth quarter of 2018 vs the fourth quarter of 2015, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 2.63-2.75; Figure panel). In contrast, performance of bilateral tubal ligation among women undergoing cesarean delivery significantly decreased from 11.3% to 2.4% (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.21). By the third quarter of 2016, the number of women who had bilateral salpingectomy exceeded those who had bilateral tubal ligation at cesarean delivery (8.6% vs 7.3%). Increasing the utilization of bilateral salpingectomy did not vary across age groups; the salpingectomy rate increased from 7.5% to 21.1% among women at the age of ≥35 years and from 3.8% to 10.7% among women at the age of <35 years (both, P<.001). In a propensity score matched model, women in the bilateral salpingectomy group were more likely to have hemorrhage (3.8% vs 3.1%; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.33), blood product transfusion (2.1% vs 1.8%; odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.30), hysterectomy (0.8% vs 0.4%; odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-2.82), and oophorectomy (0.3% vs 0.2%; odds ratio, 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-2.79) than those in the bilateral tubal ligation group. When restricted to the nonhysterectomy cases, the bilateral salpingectomy group had a higher rate of hemorrhage (3.4% vs 3.0%; odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.26) and oophorectomy (0.3% vs 0.1%; odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-2.50) than the bilateral tubal ligation group.

CONCLUSION

In the United States, the utilization of bilateral salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery increased rapidly between 2015 and 2018, replacing tubal ligation as the most common type of sterilization performed with cesarean delivery. The higher surgical morbidity in the bilateral salpingectomy group than the bilateral tubal ligation group observed in this study warrants further investigation.

Postpartum Salpingectomy Compared With Standard Tubal Ligation After Vaginal Delivery

OBJECTIVE

To compare operative outcomes of postpartum salpingectomy and tubal ligation after vaginal delivery.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study identified patients who underwent tubal sterilization between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, at a large academic hospital, using the electronic medical record. All patients who delivered vaginally and underwent tubal sterilization during their delivery admissions were included. The primary outcome was total operative time. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, and readmission within 6 weeks postpartum. Patients who underwent bilateral tubal ligation were compared with those who underwent bilateral salpingectomy using Pearson's χ2 test, Fisher exact, and Student's t test.

RESULTS

A total of 317 eligible patients were identified. One hundred and six (94%) salpingectomies were completed using a bipolar electrocautery device. Operative time was 3 minutes shorter in the salpingectomy group, 30 minutes (interquartile range 24-38) compared with 33.5 (26-42) minutes, P=.032. Patients who underwent salpingectomy were more likely to have estimated blood loss of 5 mL or less (our institutional shorthand for minimal blood loss) than women who underwent bilateral tubal ligation (78 [69%] vs 112 [55%], P=.015). There were no significant differences in perioperative complications between the groups.

CONCLUSION

When using electrocautery, bilateral salpingectomy can be completed in the immediate postpartum period after vaginal delivery with equivalent operative times to bilateral tubal ligation.

Salpingectomy at the Time of Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the differences in operative time and surgical outcomes between salpingectomy and standard tubal interruption at the time of cesarean delivery.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until July 2019 for articles reporting outcomes for women undergoing salpingectomy during cesarean delivery compared with women undergoing standard sterilization methods.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Studies were selected if they included the main outcome of operative time or additional outcomes, which included infection, transfusion, readmission, change in hematocrit, and estimated blood loss. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale or Cochrane Handbook were used to assess quality of cohort and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. A random-effects model was employed to calculate pooled relative risk or weighted mean difference for each outcome with their 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic, and L'Abbé plots were inspected visually to assess for homogeneity.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

We identified 11 studies comprising 320,443 women undergoing total salpingectomy or standard sterilization methods at the time of cesarean delivery. Three RCTs and eight retrospective cohort studies were investigated separately by meta-analysis. When compared with standard sterilization methods, total operative time for patients receiving salpingectomy was significantly longer (6.3 minutes, 95% CI 3.5-9.1, seven studies, 7,303 patients) for cohort studies. With the three RCTs of 163 patients, total operative time was not significantly increased in women receiving salpingectomy (8.1 minutes, 95% CI -4.4 to 20.7). The salpingectomy group did not have an increased risk of wound infection, transfusion, readmission, reoperation, internal organ damage, blood loss, change in hemoglobin, or length of stay when compared with standard sterilization methods.

CONCLUSION

Salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery was associated with a small increase in operative time; however, it was not associated with an increased rate of surgical complications. This option should be considered for patients desiring sterilization during cesarean delivery.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019145247.

Salpingectomy versus Tubal Occlusion for Permanent Contraception during Cesarean Delivery: Outcomes and Physician Attitudes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Compare clinical outcomes and physician attitudes toward tubal occlusion and salpingectomy during cesarean section.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study with survey.

SETTING

Private hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio.

PATIENTS

Women aged ≥18 years undergoing permanent contraception during cesarean delivery with and without salpingectomy from January 2016 to December 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Rate measurements of permanent contraception during cesarean section by salpingectomy versus tubal occlusion. Online survey assessment of study population physicians' attitudes toward salpingectomy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Study subjects identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Subject demographics, operative details, and perioperative morbidity indicators were identified by chart review. A total of 363 subjects were included: 116 (32%) had salpingectomies, and 247 (68%) had tubal occlusions. Study variables were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher exact tests. Despite similar cohort demographics, salpingectomy increased mean operative time by 6.5 minutes compared with tubal occlusion (p = .001). Compared with subjects who had a salpingectomy, those who had a tubal occlusion had more postoperative symptomatic anemia (5.7% vs 0.9%) and infection (6.9% vs 1.7%). The primary surgeon was identified by logistic regression as the factor most predictive of salpingectomy (p <.001). Of 30 physicians, 23 (77%) completed the survey, and these physicians performed 80% of procedures. Physicians did not differ by sex, age, years of practice, solo vs group practice, or hospital-employed vs private practice when compared with the number or rate of salpingectomies performed. Cancer risk reduction was the most common physician-identified salpingectomy benefit (17 of 23, 74%). A total of 65% believed that salpingectomy posed additional risks, but 70% believed the benefits were equal to or greater than the risks. Of the 23 (87%) who completed the survey, 20 believed that salpingectomy added no additional operative time and was cost-neutral.

CONCLUSION

Relative to tubal ligation, salpingectomy during cesarean section increases operative time but not perioperative morbidity. Physicians do not seem biased against salpingectomy and express awareness of published benefits and risks, yet it is not the dominant surgical approach.

Laparoscopy-assisted suprapubic salpingectomy 'Kaya technic' - a low-cost treatment of ectopic pregnancy

We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and total cost of laparoscopy-assisted suprapubic salpingectomy (LASS), which utilises conventional open surgery equipment without any sealing or coagulation devices and reduces port sites compared to conventional laparoscopy (CL). Fifty-seven consecutive, age-matched patients presenting with a tubal pregnancy were enrolled. In the LASS group, a 10 mm reusable umbilical optical trocar and a 10 mm suprapubic trocar was used. The other 30 patients were managed with multiport CL. All of the patients were asked to use the visual analogue scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale to evaluate their cosmetic satisfaction. The duration of surgery was 21.19 ± 2.33 minutes for the LASS group and 36.9 ± 4.9 minutes for the CL group (p < .001). The postoperative 6th-hour VAS score was 2.44 ± 0.5 for the LASS group and 3.03 ± 0.8 for the CL group (p: .005). All of the PSAS and OSAS parameter scores were significantly lower in LASS group than CL group. In conclusion, the LASS procedure is a feasible method for treating ectopic pregnancies with a shorter surgical duration, lower VAS scores, and better cosmetic scores than CL. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? Laparoscopy or laparotomy may be performed for the surgical management of ectopic pregnancy. Conventional laparoscopy has some advantages such as shorter hospital stay and recovery time and the better cosmetic results. However, the equipment used in conventional laparoscopy and single incision laparoscopy are more expensive than conventional open surgery equipment. What the results of this study add? Laparoscopy-assisted suprapubic salpingectomy (LASS) method has shorter operation time, lower VAS scores, better cosmetic scores and cheaper than conventional laparoscopy. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The LASS procedure looks like a feasible method for treating ectopic pregnancies and the feasibility of this procedure should be confirmed by a larger series of patients and randomised trials.

Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy vs tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery

BACKGROUND

Removal of the fallopian tubes at the time of hysterectomy or interval sterilization has become routine practice to prevent ovarian cancer. While emerging as a strategy, uptake of this procedure at the time of cesarean delivery for pregnant women seeking permanent sterilization has not been widely adopted due to perceptions of increased morbidity and operative difficulty with a lack of available data in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing strategies for long-term sterilization and ovarian cancer risk reduction at the time of cesarean delivery, including bilateral tubal ligation, opportunistic salpingectomy, and long-acting reversible contraception.

STUDY DESIGN

A decision-analytic and cost-effectiveness model was constructed for pregnant women undergoing cesarean delivery who desired permanent sterilization in the US population, comparing 3 strategies: (1) bilateral tubal ligation, (2) bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy, and (3) postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. This theoretic cohort consisted of 110,000 pregnant women desiring permanent sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery and ovarian cancer prevention at an average of 35 years who were monitored for an additional 40 years based on an average US female life expectancy of 75 years. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years. Secondary outcomes included: the number of ovarian cancer cases and deaths, procedure-related complications, and unintended and ectopic pregnancies. The 1-, 2-, and 3-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000.

RESULTS

Both bilateral tubal ligation and bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy with cesarean delivery have favorable cost-effectiveness ratios. In the base case analysis, salpingectomy was more cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,189 per quality-adjusted life year compared to tubal ligation. Long-acting reversible contraception after cesarean was not cost-effective (ie, dominated). Although salpingectomy and tubal ligation were both cost-effective over a wide range of cost and risk estimates, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis was highly sensitive to the uncertainty around the estimates of salpingectomy cancer risk reduction, risk of perioperative complications, and cost. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated that tubal ligation had a 49% chance of being the preferred strategy over salpingectomy. If the true salpingectomy risk of perioperative complications is >2% higher than tubal ligation or if the cancer risk reduction of salpingectomy is <52%, then tubal ligation is the preferred, more cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral tubal ligation and bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy with cesarean delivery are both cost-effective strategies for permanent sterilization and ovarian cancer risk reduction. Although salpingectomy and tubal ligation are both reasonable strategies for cesarean patients seeking permanent sterilization and cancer risk reduction, threshold analyses indicate that the risks and benefits of salpingectomy with cesarean delivery need to be better defined before a preferred strategy can be determined.

The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy versus standard tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery for ovarian cancer risk reduction

OBJECTIVES

Opportunistic salpingectomy is a cost-effective strategy recommended for ovarian cancer (OvCa) risk reduction at the time of gynecologic surgery in women who have completed childbearing. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy compared to standard tubal ligation (TL) during cesarean delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness analysis using decision modeling to compare opportunistic salpingectomy to TL at the time of cesarean using probabilities of procedure completion derived from a trial. Probability and cost inputs were derived from local data and the literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2017 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed for all variables. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined the proportion of simulations in which each strategy would be cost-effective.

RESULTS

Opportunistic salpingectomy was cost-effective compared to TL with an ICER of $26,616 per QALY. In 10,000 women desiring sterilization with cesarean, opportunistic salpingectomy would result in 17 fewer OvCa diagnoses, 13 fewer OvCa deaths, and 25 fewer unintended pregnancies compared to TL - with an associated cost increase of $4.7 million. The model was sensitive only to OvCa risk reduction from salpingectomy and TL. Opportunistic salpingectomy was not cost-effective if its cost was >$3163.74 more than TL, if the risk-reduction of salpingectomy was <41%, or if the risk-reduction of TL was >46%. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis opportunistic salpingectomy was cost effective in 75% of simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

In women undergoing cesarean with sterilization, opportunistic salpingectomy is likely cost-effective and may be cost-saving in comparison to TL for OvCa risk reduction.

Bilateral salpingectomy versus bilateral partial salpingectomy during cesarean delivery

Objective

To compare surgical outcomes in patients undergoing bilateral salpingectomy (salpingectomy group) with those who had partial salpingectomy (partial salpingectomy group) during cesarean delivery.

Materials and methods

A chart review from July 2015 to November 2016 was performed. We included women who had sterilization during cesarean delivery. We excluded sterilization by occlusive methods. Our primary outcomes were total operative time and a composite score of transfusion rate, internal organ injury, hospital readmission, and endometritis. Secondary outcomes included menstrual abnormalities, pelvic pain, quality of life assessment, and regrets rate. We compared these outcomes between women in the salpingectomy and partial salpingectomy groups. Chi-squared, Fisher’s exact, t-test, and Mann–Whitney U were utilized for statistical analysis where appropriate. A P<0.05 was considered significant.

Results

We included a total of 160 pregnancies. Of these, 41 were in the salpingectomy and 119 in the partial salpingectomy group. The median total operative time was longer for the salpingectomy group (62 [IQR 54, 71] vs 60 minutes [IQR 46, 72]; P=0.03). The composite of surgical complications (19.5% vs 12.6%; P=0.28) was not significantly different between our study groups. Menstrual irregularities (P≥0.99), quality of life (P≥0.99), dyspareunia (P≥0.99), dysmenorrhea (P=0.36), and regrets (P≥0.99) were not different between groups.

Conclusion

Salpingectomy during cesarean delivery increased the median operative time by 2 minutes and may not be associated with an increased risk of surgical complications. We acknowledge the need for larger multi-center trials to corroborate our outcomes.

Women's preferences for permanent contraception method and willingness to be randomized for a hypothetical trial

OBJECTIVE

To understand women's preferences for permanent contraception by salpingectomy or tubal occlusion following standardized counseling and evaluate the practicality of a future randomized trial.

STUDY DESIGN

We invited pregnant and non-pregnant women planning permanent contraception at the University of California, Davis (UCD) and University of Tennessee (UT) Obstetrics and Gynecology clinics to participate. We enrolled women when they received routine counseling and signed procedure consent. Participants received standardized information sheets reviewing permanent contraception options based on pregnancy status then completed an anonymous survey with questions about demographics, method preference, and willingness to participate in a hypothetical randomized trial comparing salpingectomy and tubal occlusion. We evaluated predictors for salpingectomy preference using multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

From July 2015 to October 2016, we enrolled 75 women at UCD and 63 women at UT. Overall, respondents preferred salpingectomy (63.0%); among the 47 women not currently pregnant at both sites, 40 (85.1%) preferred salpingectomy, most commonly because of higher efficacy. Although population characteristics differed significantly between the sites, only UCD site (aOR 4.2; 95% CI 1.9, 9.4) and non-pregnancy status (aOR 4.2; 95% CI 1.6, 10.8) predicted preference for salpingectomy in the multivariable model. Most participants (n=84, 60.9%) would not be willing to be randomized to a theoretical trial comparing salpingectomy and tubal occlusion procedures.

CONCLUSION

Among a diverse group of women from two different areas in the U.S. given a choice of permanent contraception methods, salpingectomy is preferred over tubal occlusion. Most women planning a permanent contraceptive procedure would not agree to a randomized comparison of these methods.

IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT

Salpingectomy, which offers theoretically higher efficacy and potentially greater ovarian cancer protection compared to tubal occlusion, is preferred by the majority of patients and should be offered to all women seeking permanent contraception. Differences in method choices less likely reflect the patient population and more likely the counseling provided.

Feasibility of Complete Salpingectomy Compared With Standard Postpartum Tubal Ligation at Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility of salpingectomy compared with standard bilateral tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery in women with undesired fertility.

METHODS

We included women at 35 weeks of gestation or greater desiring permanent sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery. Patients were randomized after skin incision to bilateral salpingectomy or bilateral tubal ligation by a computer-generated scheme. If salpingectomy could not be completed on one or both sides, bilateral tubal ligation was attempted. Primary feasibility outcomes were total operative time and bilateral completion of the randomized procedure. Secondary outcomes included clinically estimated blood loss and surgical complications up to 6 weeks postpartum. We estimated that 80 patients (40 per group) would provide greater than 80% power to identify a 10-minute difference in the primary outcome (time) with a SD of 15 minutes and a two-sided α of 0.05. Analysis was by intent to treat.

RESULTS

Of 221 women screened from June 2015 to April 2017, 115 (52%) consented to the study; 80 were randomized-40 to salpingectomy and 40 to bilateral tubal ligation. Groups were similar at baseline. A total of 27 bilateral salpingectomies were successfully completed compared with 38 bilateral tubal ligations (68% compared with 95%, P=.002). Total operative time was on average 15 minutes longer for salpingectomies (75.4±29.1 compared with 60.0±23.3 minutes, P=.004). No adverse outcomes directly related to the sterilization procedure were noted in either group. Although estimated blood loss of only the sterilization procedure (surgeon estimate) was greater for the salpingectomy group (median 10 [interquartile range 5-25] compared with 5 [interquartile range 5-10] cc, P<.001), total estimated blood loss and safety outcomes were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

Adding 15 minutes to total operative times, salpingectomy can be successfully completed in approximately two thirds of women desiring permanent contraception with cesarean delivery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02374827.

Successful completion of total and partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate completion of partial or total salpingectomy during Cesarean delivery based on intended procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective study of women who had a permanent contraception procedure during Cesarean delivery at an urban, academic hospital from November 2015 through April 2017. We reviewed all charts of women who had a Cesarean delivery to identify those who underwent concomitant tubal surgery, including both completed and attempted procedures. We compared demographic, medical, and obstetric characteristics of participants by planned and completed method using univariate analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 122 women who underwent Cesarean delivery with planned concurrent permanent contraception procedure. Thirty-two (26.2%) women preferred partial salpingectomy and 90 (73.8%) preferred total salpingectomy. All women who desired partial salpingectomy had the procedure performed. However, 17 (18.9%) women desiring total salpingectomy could not have the procedure performed bilaterally: nine underwent a mixed procedure and seven underwent bilateral partial salpingectomy because of adhesions, engorged vasculature, or unspecified reasons. One woman had significant adhesive disease preventing any procedure. Among women who planned a total salpingectomy, having ≥3 Cesarean deliveries was the only factor associated with needing an alternative procedure (P=.04).

CONCLUSION

As interest in total salpingectomy for permanent contraception increases, surgeons should counsel women who are interested in total salpingectomy at time of Cesarean delivery that adhesions and tubal proximity to adjacent vessels may preclude completion of bilateral tubal removal and discuss alternative options prior to surgery.

IMPLICATIONS

Interest in bilateral total salpingectomy for permanent contraception at the time of Cesarean delivery is increasing; accordingly, surgeons should counsel patients that adhesions and proximity to large vessels may preclude completion of bilateral total salpingectomy, especially in women who have had multiple prior Cesarean deliveries.