Change in the ovarian environment after hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy: is it the technique or surgery itself?

The Impact of Opportunistic Salpingectomy on Ovarian Reserve: A Systematic Review

Background: In the last decade, increasing evidence has suggested that high-grade serous ovarian cancers may have their origin in the fallopian tube rather than the ovary. This emerging theory presents an opportunity to prevent epithelial ovarian cancer by incorporating prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy into all surgical procedures for average-risk women. The aim of this review is to investigate the hypothesis that bilateral salpingectomy (BS) may have a negative impact on ovarian reserve, not only following hysterectomy for benign uterine pathologies but also when performed during cesarean sections as a method of sterilization or as a treatment for hydrosalpinx in Assisted Reproductive Technology interventions. Methods: PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were searched for original studies, meta-analyses, and opinion articles published between 2014 and 2024. Results: Out of 114 records from the database search, after the removal of duplicates, 102 articles were considered relevant for the current study. Conclusions: Performing opportunistic salpingectomy seems to have no adverse impact on ovarian function in the short term. However, because there is an existing risk of damaging ovarian blood supply during salpingectomy, there are concerns about potential long-term adverse effects on the ovarian reserve, which need further investigation.

Comparison of salpingectomy and tubal occlusion for hydrosalpinx in in-vitro fertilization outcome

The occurrence of hydrosalpinx can reduce the success rate of assisted reproductive technology. The laparoscopic salpingectomy and tubal occlusion have been shown to improve in-vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in this disease. The primary goal of this review was to assess and compare the IVF outcome following salpingectomy or tubal occlusion in the published literature. The authors included studies with at least one of the following outcomes: days of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, retrieved oocyte number, fertilization rates, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, or ectopic pregnancy rate. In conclusion, proximal tubal occlusion outperforms salpingectomy in terms of fertilization rate while offering no evident advantages in terms of days of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, retrieved oocytes number, IVF results, or problems in treating hydrosalpinx patients prior to IVF. These data may help clinicians choose the best therapy for patients with hydrosalpinx prior to IVF.

A Study to Evaluate the Effect of Opportunistic Salpingectomy on Ovarian Reserve and Function

Background

There are conflicting reports on status of ovarian function after hysterectomy and opportunistic salpingectomy in premenopausal women. The present study was undertaken to understand the effect of salpingectomy done at the time of hysterectomy on ovarian reserve and function as measured by serum AMH and FSH levels before and after the surgery.

Methods

This was a prospective study conducted on 60 women who underwent hysterectomy at our tertiary care centre, Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of medical and health sciences, Dehradun, from January 2020 to September 2021. Serum AMH and FSH levels were monitored preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively in patients undergoing hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy and hysterectomy without salpingectomy.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 41.83 yrs in group 1 and 43.73 yrs in group 2 [p value = 0.078]. Most common indication of hysterectomy was AUB-L in both the groups (86% and 80%, respectively). Mean operative time was 115.50 min in group 1 and 114.40 min in group 2 [p value = 0.823]. Mean intra-operative blood loss was 214 ml in group 1 and 199.33 ml in group 2 [p value = 0.087]. Serum AMH and FSH were insignificantly decreased in both the groups post-operatively after 3 months, and the difference between both groups was also not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Salpingectomy done at the time of hysterectomy for benign indications with preservation of ovaries did not have any short-term adverse effects on ovarian reserve and function.

The effect of prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy on ovarian reserve in patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

Bilateral salpingectomy has been proposed to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but it is not clear whether the surgery affects ovarian reserve. This study compares the impact of laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease with or without prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy on ovarian reserve.

METHODS

Records were reviewed for 373 premenopausal women who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy with ovarian reserve for benign uterine diseases. The serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), estradiol (E2), and three-dimensional antral follicle count (AFC) were assessed before surgery and 3 and 9 months postoperatively to evaluate ovarian reserve. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they underwent prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy. The incidence of pelvic diseases was monitored until the ninth month after surgery.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two surgery groups in terms of baseline AMH, E2, FSH, LH, and AFC (all P > 0.05). There was no difference in potential bias factors, including patient age, operative time, and blood loss (all P > 0.05). There was also no significant difference between the two groups 3 months after surgery with respect to AMH (P = 0.763), E2 (P = 0.264), FSH (P = 0.478), LH (P = 0.07), and AFC (P = 0.061). Similarly, there were no differences between groups 9 months after surgery for AMH (P = 0.939), E2 (P = 0.137), FSH (P = 0.276), LH (P = 0.07) and AFC (P = 0.066). At 9 months after the operation, no patients had malignant ovarian tumors. The incidences of benign ovarian tumors in the salpingectomy group were 0 and 2.68 % at 3 and 9 months after surgery, respectively, and the corresponding values in the control group were 0 and 5.36 %. The incidences of pelvic inflammatory disease in the salpingectomy group were 10.72 and 8.04 % at 3 and 9 months after surgery, respectively, while corresponding values in the control group were 24.13 and 16.09 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy did not damage the ovarian reserve of reproductive-age women who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy. Prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy might be a good method to prevent the development of ovarian cancer. Larger clinical trials with longer follow-up times are needed to further evaluate the risks and benefits.

The effect of laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy on ovarian reserve

BACKGROUND

Salpingectomy may damage ovarian reserve by direct vascular interruption to the ovary or thermal vascular injury from electrosurgery. It is plausible that this risk may increase in the context of salpingectomy conducted for ectopic pregnancy due to the distension of the fallopian tube and vascular changes associated with pregnancy.

AIM

To report anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentrations before and after laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy as an indicator of change in ovarian reserve.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women aged 18-44 years scheduled for salpingectomy for tubal ectopic pregnancy were prospectively recruited. Serum AMH concentrations were measured immediately prior to surgery, then repeated four months post-operatively. In all cases, salpingectomy was conducted laparoscopically using bipolar electrosurgery and mechanical scissors. A group of women scheduled for uterine curettage for first trimester miscarriage was recruited to ensure any observed change in AMH concentration in the women undergoing salpingectomy was secondary to surgery, rather than an effect of pregnancy.

RESULTS

Paired pre- and post-operative serum AMH concentrations were obtained from 32 women with tubal ectopic pregnancy. The mean age of the women was 33.6 ± 4.6 years. There was no significant difference in the median pre- and post-operative AMH concentrations (13.00 pmol/L (range 5-67 pmol/L) vs 15.25 pmol/L (range 3-96 pmol/L), P = 0.575). Median AMH concentrations also remained stable in women experiencing a first trimester miscarriage (10.40 pmol/L (range 3.9-37.8 pmol/L) vs 13.67 pmol/L (range 2.8-30.5 pmol/L), P = 0.185).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic salpingectomy using electrosurgery and mechanical scissors does not damage ovarian reserve. AMH concentrations do not fluctuate from baseline in the first trimester of pregnancy.

Hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy versus hysterectomy alone

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality rate of all gynaecological malignancies with an overall five-year survival rate of 30% to 40%. In the past two decades it has become apparent and more commonly accepted that a majority of ovarian cancers originate in the fallopian tube epithelium and not from the ovary itself. This paradigm shift introduced new possibilities for ovarian cancer prevention. Salpingectomy during a hysterectomy for benign gynaecological indications (also known as opportunistic salpingectomy) might reduce the overall incidence of ovarian cancer. Aside from efficacy, safety is of utmost importance, especially due to the preventive nature of opportunistic salpingectomy. Most important are safety in the form of surgical adverse events and postoperative hormonal status. Therefore, we compared the benefits and risks of hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy to hysterectomy without opportunistic salpingectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect and safety of hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy versus hysterectomy without salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynaecological indications; outcomes of interest include the incidence of epithelial ovarian cancer, surgery-related adverse events and postoperative ovarian reserve.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two clinical trial registers were searched in January 2019 together with reference checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We intended to include both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared ovarian cancer incidence after hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy to hysterectomy without opportunistic salpingectomy in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynaecological indications. For assessment of surgical and hormonal safety, we included RCTs that compared hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy to hysterectomy without opportunistic salpingectomy in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynaecological indications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were ovarian cancer incidence, intraoperative and short-term postoperative complication rate and postoperative hormonal status. Secondary outcomes were total surgical time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate to open surgery (applicable only to laparoscopic and vaginal approaches), duration of hospital admission, menopause-related symptoms and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs (350 women analysed). The evidence was of very low to low quality: the main limitations being a low number of included women and surgery-related adverse events, substantial loss to follow-up and a large variety in outcome measures and timing of measurements.No studies reported ovarian cancer incidence after hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy compared to hysterectomy without opportunistic salpingectomy in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynaecological indications. For surgery-related adverse events, there were insufficient data to assess whether there was any difference in both intraoperative (odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 3.94; 5 studies, 286 participants; very low-quality evidence) and short-term postoperative (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.14; 3 studies, 152 participants; very low-quality evidence) complication rates between hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy and hysterectomy without opportunistic salpingectomy because the number of surgery-related adverse events was very low. For postoperative hormonal status, the results were compatible with no difference, or with a reduction in anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) that would not be clinically relevant (mean difference (MD) -0.94, 95% CI -1.89 to 0.01; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 283 participants; low-quality evidence). A reduction in AMH would be unfavourable, but due to wide CIs, the postoperative change in AMH can still vary from a substantial decrease to even a slight increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no eligible studies reporting on one of our primary outcomes - the incidence of ovarian cancer specifically after hysterectomy with or without opportunistic salpingectomy. However, outside the scope of this review there is a growing body of evidence for the effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy itself during other interventions or as a sterilisation technique, strongly suggesting a protective effect. In our meta-analyses, we found insufficient data to assess whether there was any difference in surgical adverse events, with a very low number of events in women undergoing hysterectomy with and without opportunistic salpingectomy. For postoperative hormonal status we found no evidence of a difference between the groups. The maximum difference in time to menopause, calculated from the lower limit of the 95% CI and the natural average AMH decline, would be approximately 20 months, which we consider to be not clinically relevant. However, the results should be interpreted with caution and even more so in very young women for whom a difference in postoperative hormonal status is potentially more clinically relevant. Therefore, there is a need for research on the long-term effects of opportunistic salpingectomy during hysterectomy, particularly in younger women, as results are currently limited to six months postoperatively. This limit is especially important as AMH, the most frequently used marker for ovarian reserve, recovers over the course of several months following an initial sharp decline after surgery. In light of the available evidence, addition of opportunistic salpingectomy should be discussed with each woman undergoing a hysterectomy for benign indication, with provision of a clear overview of benefits and risks.

Evaluation of ovarian function after hysterectomy with or without salpingectomy: A feasible study

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic salpingectomy for the prevention of ovarian cancer has been recommended strongly. The aim of this study was to compare ovarian function in patients who undergo hysterectomy for benign reasons with or without bilateral salpingectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a clinical-trial study on patients undergone hysterectomy with/without bilateral salpingectomy in Al-Zahra Hospital, in 2015-2016. Demographic information (age, height, and weight) were recorded. Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) were measured in 2-5 days of menstrual cycle before operation. Patients were asked to refer in 6 months for follow-up, including FSH and LH re-measurement and also menopausal status examination. Patients were divided into age groups of 39-45, 46-50, and ≥51 and also groups of body mass index including 18.5-24.9, 25-29.9, and 30-34.9.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients divided into two groups, including 22 patients undergone hysterectomy without salpingectomy (H) and 15 undergone hysterectomy with bilateral salpingectomy (H-bS). The mean age (standard deviation) of Group H was 47.77 (3.03) and Group H-bS was 48.47 (2.03) (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the mean level of FSH and LH before surgery was not significantly different (P > 0.05). The mean level of FSH and LH changes was not significant between H and H-bS groups (P = 0.17), (P = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

Bilateral salpingectomy during hysterectomy did not increase the risk of ovarian dysfunction after 6 months follow-up.

Ovarian reserve after salpingectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although there has been a growing concern over the possible damaging effect of salpingectomy on ovarian reserve, this issue remains uncertain. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to test the hypothesis that salpingectomy may compromise ovarian reserve.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A detailed search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Dynamed Plus, ScienceDirect, TRIP database and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to November 2016. All cohort, cross-sectional and randomized controlled studies investigating changes in circulating anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) after salpingectomy were considered. Thirty-seven studies were identified, of which eight were eligible. Data were extracted and entered into RevMan software for calculation of the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI. Two groups of studies were analyzed separately: group 1 (six studies, n = 464) comparing data before and after salpingectomy and group 2 (two studies) comparing data in women who have undergone salpingectomy (n = 169) vs. healthy controls (n = 154).

RESULTS

Pooled results of group 1 studies showed no statistically significant change in serum AMH concentration after salpingectomy (WMD, -0.10 ng/mL; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00, I² = 0%). Similarly, meta-analysis of group 2 showed no statistically significant difference in serum AMH concentration between salpingectomy group and controls (WMD, -0.11 ng/mL; 95% CI -0.37 to 0.14, I² = 77%). Subgroup analyses based on laterality of surgery, type of AMH kit and participants' age (<40 years) still showed no statistically significant changes in circulating AMH.

CONCLUSION

Salpingectomy does not seem to compromise ovarian reserve in the short-term. However, the long-term effect of salpingectomy on ovarian reserve remains uncertain.