Role of salpingectomy at the time of urogynecologic surgery

Opportunistic Salpingectomy at the Time of Urogynecologic Surgery: Why, in Whom, and How?

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to (1) describe evidence supporting the fallopian tube as a site of high-grade serous carcinoma, (2) review literature regarding salpingectomy in high- and average-risk women, and (3) discuss feasibility and safety of salpingectomy in urogynecologic surgery.

METHODS

PubMed and university library resources were used to retrieve relevant English-language publications via keyword search, including "ovarian cancer," "salpingectomy," "risk," "safety," "hysterectomy," "trends," "technique," and "urogynecology." Each publication was reviewed in detail and references incorporated, where relevant.

RESULTS

Evidence supports the fimbriated portion of the fallopian tube as a site of high-grade serous carcinoma in both hereditary and sporadic cases. Routine opportunistic salpingectomy in average-risk women may reduce ovarian cancer risk by 42% to 65% and prevent future surgery for benign tubal disease. Opportunistic salpingectomy is cost-effective for sterilization and cost-saving during hysterectomy. For genetically predisposed women, salpingo-oophorectomy remains the recommended strategy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. Despite being feasible, safe, and cost-effective, concomitant salpingectomy is least commonly performed during vaginal hysterectomy compared with other hysterectomy routes. Salpingectomy rates during vaginal hysterectomy are influenced by geographic factors, surgeon experience, and adhesive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunistic salpingectomy holds promise as a risk-reducing intervention for ovarian cancer. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommend that physicians counsel average-risk women regarding opportunistic salpingectomy when planning pelvic surgery. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate long-term implications of salpingectomy. Urogynecologic surgeons should discuss salpingectomy as part of surgical informed consent. Vaginal salpingectomy should be incorporated into residency and fellowship training programs.

Feasibility of Risk Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy at the Time of Abdominal Surgery for Correction of Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Urinary Incontinence

Objective

The objective of this study is to assess the perioperative outcomes when prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is performed concomitantly with surgery to repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Materials and Methods

This is a retrospective case-control study of patients who underwent abdominal surgery for the correction of POP and/or SUI with or without concomitant BSO at a tertiary care center. The primary outcome measures were postsurgery length of hospitalization, estimated blood loss, and 30-day readmission rate. The secondary outcome measure was detection of ovarian cancer precursor lesions.

Results

We identified 734 patients who had surgery for POP and/or SUI. The control group contained 385 patients, and the BSO group contained 349 patients. There was no difference between the control and BSO groups in the postsurgery length of stay (LOS) (35.2 h vs. 34.1 h; P = 0.49), and all-cause 30-day readmission rate (14.2% vs. 11.6%; P = 0.3085). However, there was decreased blood loss (40.8 ml vs. 67.2 ml, P < 0.0001) in the BSO group compared to the control group. Sub-analysis of primary outcomes in postmenopausal women (age > 55) showed decreased postsurgery LOS (33.4 h vs. 37.4 h; P = 0.0208) and decreased blood loss (35.9 ml vs. 82.7 ml; P < 0.0001) in the BSO group compared to control.

Conclusion

Secondary to the lack of additional complications, we recommend surgeons give more consideration to finding appropriate candidates for a risk reducing BSO at time of abdominal surgery to repair POP or SUI.

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.

Risk-reducing Surgery in Women at Low Lifetime Risk of Developing Ovarian Carcinoma: Opportunistic Salpingectomy

Lack of success in ovarian cancer control through screening or advances in treatment in the general population has prompted exploration in new avenues of prevention. "Opportunistic" salpingectomy describes a surgical procedure or risk-reducing intent in women at low-risk/general population risk for developing ovarian cancer who are undergoing pelvic/abdominal surgery for other indications. This chapter reviews the uptake, safety, and anticipated impact of this prevention initiative.

Survey of pelvic reconstructive surgeons on performance of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of pelvic organ prolapse repair

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Opportunistic salpingectomy (OS) at the time of benign hysterectomy has recently emerged as a potential primary preventive modality for ovarian cancer. Our objective was to determine whether the reported rate of OS at the time of prolapse surgery is similar to the rate of OS at the time of gynecologic surgery for non-prolapse indications.

METHODS

An anonymous online survey was sent to the Society of Gynecologic Surgery members. Responses were divided into surgeons who did and did not perform OS at the time of prolapse repair. Differences between surgeons who did and did not perform OS were evaluated using the chi-square test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify which responses related to increased odds of performing OS.

RESULTS

There were 117 (33.1%) completed responses; of these, 98 (83.8%) reported performing OS at the time of prolapse repair, which was similar to the reported rate of OS at the time of hysterectomy for non-prolapse indications, 82.1%. After multivariable logistic regression, performance of salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy for a non-prolapse indication (aOR: 17.9, 95% CI: 3.11-42.01), use of a laparoscopic or robotic surgical approach (aOR 14.1, 95% CI: 1.81-32.21) and completion of an FPMRS fellowship (aOR: 3.47, 95% CI: 1.20-10.02) were associated with a higher likelihood of performing OS at the time of prolapse repair.

CONCLUSIONS

OS at the time prolapse repair is performed more frequently with concomitant hysterectomy compared with OS at the time of post-hysterectomy prolapse repair and is similar to rates of OS performed at the time of hysterectomy for non-prolapse indications.

Persistence of fimbrial tissue on the ovarian surface after salpingectomy

BACKGROUND

Salpingectomy is recommended as a risk-reducing strategy for epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer. The gold standard procedure is complete tubal excision.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the presence of residual fimbrial/tubal tissue on ovarian surfaces after salpingectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective analysis of patients who underwent salpingo-oophorectomy with or without hysterectomy for benign indications, early cervical cancer, or low-risk endometrial cancer at a UK National Health Service Trust. Salpingectomy with or without hysterectomy was performed initially, followed by oophorectomy within the same operation. Separately retrieved tubes and ovaries were sectioned serially and examined completely histologically. The main outcome measure was histologically identified fimbrial/ tubal tissue on ovarian surface. Chi-square/Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate categoric variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-five consecutive cases (mean age, 54.8 ± 5.0 years) that comprised 41 adnexae (unilateral, 9; bilateral, 16) were analyzed. Seventeen (68.0%), 5 (20.0%), and 3 (12.0%) procedures were performed by consultant gynecologists, subspecialty/specialist trainees, and consultant gynecologic oncologists, respectively. Twelve of 25 procedures (48.0%) were laparoscopic, and 13 of 25 procedures (52.0%) involved laparotomy. Four of 25 patients (16.0%; 95% confidence interval, 4.5-36.1%) or 4 of 41 adnexae (9.8%; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-23.1%) showed residual microscopic fimbrial tissue on the ovarian surface. Tubes/ovaries were free of adhesions in 23 cases. Two cases had dense adnexal adhesions, but neither had residual fimbrial tissue on the ovary. Residual fimbrial tissue was not associated significantly with surgical route or experience (consultant, 3/20 [15%]; trainee, 1/5 [20%]; P=1.0).

CONCLUSION

Residual fimbrial tissue remains on the ovary after salpingectomy in a significant proportion of cases and could impact the level of risk-reduction that is obtained.

Effects of salpingectomy during abdominal hysterectomy on ovarian reserve: a randomized controlled trial

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of salpingectomy on ovarian function by measuring AMH.

Methods

This study was a balanced, single-center, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in Ruin Tan Arash Hospital, Tehran, between May 2013 and November 2014. A total of 30 patients undergoing elective abdominal hysterectomy were randomized into two groups, 15 with salpingectomy and 15 without salpingectomy. The primary objective of this study was to compare mean difference of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) between two groups. The secondary outcomes measured were follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), operative time, and blood loss.

Results

Serum AMH levels decreased at 3 months after hysterectomy in all patients (pre AMH 1.32 ± (0.91); post AMH 1.05 ± (0.88), P < 0.001), the salpingectomy group (pre AMH 1.44 ± (0.94); post AMH 1.13 ± (0.86), P < 0.001), and no salpingectomy group (pre AMH 1.2 ± (0.9); post AMH 0.97 ± (0.92), P < 0.001). The rate of decline of AMH levels after surgery did not differ between the two groups (25% (17–33%) vs. 26% (15–36%), P = 0.23) among the women with salpingectomy versus without salpingectomy, respectively. There was no difference in the mean operative time (mean difference 0.33, 95% CI − 22.21 to 22.86, P < 0.92), mean blood loss (mean difference − 0.66, 95% CI − 15.8 to 14.46, P < 0.97), and post FSH (mean difference 0.34, 95% CI − 1.2 to 1.88, P < 0.65) between both groups.

Conclusions

Salpingectomy with abdominal hysterectomy is a safe treatment that does not have a deleterious effect on ovarian reserve.

Trial registration

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, IRCT2014123118866N4 (www.IRCT.ir)