Nationwide salpingectomy rates for an indication of permanent contraception before and after published practice guidelines

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.

The impact of the 2015 ACOG screening guidelines on the diagnosis of postpartum depression among privately insured women

BACKGROUND

Postpartum depression (PPD), is underdiagnosed and undertreated. In 2015, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that women be screened for PPD at least once during the perinatal period. The effect of the recommendation on PPD diagnosis is unknown.

METHODS

Using the MerativeTM MarketScan® database, PPD prevalence was identified in privately insured women ages 13-45 with a live birth between 2013 and 2016. Postpartum depression was defined as an ICD diagnosis code for PPD or other depression, or a new pharmacy claim for an antidepressant medication during the first 12 months following delivery. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood of PPD both before and after the ACOG PPD Committee Opinion.

RESULTS

The study included 244,624 women ages 13-45 who had a live birth in 2013 through 2016. PPD prevalence before and after the 2015 ACOG Committee Opinion was 15.1 % and 17.2 %, respectively. The likelihood of PPD was not statistically different following the 2015 Committee Opinion (adjusted OR, 1.00, 95 % CI, 0.97-1.03) when controlling for age, year, delivery complications, and geographic region.

LIMITATIONS

Sociodemographic variables are not included in the MarketScan database and therefore could not be analyzed as covariates. Re-defining a PPD diagnosis as above interfered with the ability to measure a prior history of mood disorders as a covariate.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the ACOG recommendations was not associated with a significant increase in PPD diagnosis. This suggests that physician organization recommendations alone are not sufficient to increase detection of PPD.

The Prevalence, Indications, Outcomes of the Most Common Major Gynecological Surgeries in Kazakhstan and Recommendations for Potential Improvements into Public Health and Clinical Practice: Analysis of the National Electronic Healthcare System (2014-2019)

OBJECTIVES

Major gynecological surgeries are indicated for the treatment of female genital pathologies. It is key to examine trends in gynecologic surgical procedures and updated recommendations by international gynecological societies to find opportunities for improvement of local guidelines. To date, a very limited number of reports have been published on the epidemiology of gynecological surgeries in Kazakhstan. Moreover, some local guidelines for gynecological conditions do not comply with the international recommendations. Thus, this study aims to investigate the prevalence, indications, and outcomes of the most common major gynecological surgeries by analyzing large-scale Kazakhstani healthcare data, and identifying possible opportunities for improvement of the local public health and clinical practice.

METHODS

A descriptive, population-based study among women who underwent a gynecological surgery in healthcare settings across the Republic of Kazakhstan during the period of 2014-2019 was performed. Data were collected from the Unified Nationwide Electronic Health System (UNEHS).

RESULTS

In total, 80,401 surgery cases were identified and analyzed in the UNEHS database for a period of 6 years (2014-2019). The median age of the participants was 40 years old, with 61.1% in reproductive age. The most prevalent intervention was a unilateral salpingectomy-29.4%, with 72.6% patients aged between 18-34 years. The proportion of different types of hysterectomies was 49.4%. In 20% of cases, subtotal abdominal hysterectomy was performed due to uterine leiomyoma. The proportion of laparoscopic procedures in Kazakhstani gynecological practice is as low-11.59%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kazakhstani public health and gynecological care sector should reinforce implementation of contemporary treatment methods and up-to-date policies and guidelines. The overall trends in surgical procedures performed for gynecological pathologies, including uterine leiomyoma and ectopic pregnancy treatment, should be changed in favor of the minimally invasive methods in order to adopt a fertility-sparing approach.

Patients' perceptions toward and the driving factors of decision-making for opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy at the time of cesarean section

Objective:

Enough data can be found in the literature regarding the protective effect of tubal ligation on gynecological cancers. In addition, a large body of evidence revealed that prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy had no significant negative effect on the ovarian function, quality of life, sexuality, surgery duration, and cost-effectivity. This study was aimed at exploring the underlying factors that motivate women for either opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (OBS) or tubal ligation, particularly focusing on their preferences, knowledge, and beliefs toward female sterilization, satisfaction from counseling, and body image following the salpingectomy.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 54 patients who had undergone surgical sterilization with either OBS or tubal ligation were included in this prospective cohort study. The acceptance rate of the OBS at the time of cesarean section among pregnant women seeking surgical sterilization was calculated. The underlying reasons for women’s acceptance or refusal for salpingectomy were assessed by a non-validated data collection tool that had 14 open-ended questions focusing on the women’s preferences, knowledge, beliefs toward female sterilization, satisfaction from counseling, and body image following the salpingectomy.

Results:

The acceptance rate of OBS at the time of cesarean section among pregnant women and electively among non-pregnant women were 93.5% (n=43/46) and 75% (6/8), respectively. The main driving factors influencing the decision of preferring OBS over tubal ligation were the risk-reducing effect for ovarian cancer and superior pregnancy prevention.

Conclusion:

The acceptance rate of OBS at the time of cesarean section was found to be very high, and it should therefore be offered at the time of cesarean section to women who desire permanent contraception.

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.