OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare ovarian function and surgical outcomes between patients affected by benign uterine pathologies submitted to total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) plus salpingectomy and women in which standard TLH with adnexal preservation was performed. METHODS: We retrospectively compared data of 79 patients who underwent TLH plus bilateral salpingectomy (group A), with those of 79 women treated by standard TLH without adnexectomy (sTLH) (group B). Ovarian reserve modification, expressed as the difference between 3 months post-operative and pre-operative values of Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH), Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH), Antral Follicle Count (AFC), mean ovarian diameters and Peak Systolic Velocity (PSV), was recorded for each patient. For each surgical procedure, operative time, variation of hemoglobin level (ΔHb), postoperative hospital stay, postoperative return to normal activity, and complication rate were recorded as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: According to our post-hoc analysis, this equivalence study resulted to have a statistical power of 96.8%. Significant difference was not observed between groups with respect to ΔAMH (p=0.35), ΔFSH (p=0.15), ΔAFC (p=0.09), Δ mean ovarian diameters (p=0.57) and ΔPSV (p=0.61). In addition, secondary outcomes such as operative time (p=0.79), ΔHb (p=0.41), postoperative hospital stay (p=0.16), postoperative return to normal activity (p=0.11) and complication rate also did not show any significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bilateral salpingectomy to TLH for prevention of ovarian cancer in women who do not carry a BRCA1/2 mutations do not show negative effects on the ovarian function. In addition, no perioperative complications are related to the salpingectomy step in TLH.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare ovarian function and surgical outcomes between patients affected by benign uterine pathologies submitted to total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) plus salpingectomy and women in which standard TLH with adnexal preservation was performed. METHODS: We retrospectively compared data of 79 patients who underwent TLH plus bilateral salpingectomy (group A), with those of 79 women treated by standard TLH without adnexectomy (sTLH) (group B). Ovarian reserve modification, expressed as the difference between 3 months post-operative and pre-operative values of Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH), Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH), Antral Follicle Count (AFC), mean ovarian diameters and Peak Systolic Velocity (PSV), was recorded for each patient. For each surgical procedure, operative time, variation of hemoglobin level (ΔHb), postoperative hospital stay, postoperative return to normal activity, and complication rate were recorded as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: According to our post-hoc analysis, this equivalence study resulted to have a statistical power of 96.8%. Significant difference was not observed between groups with respect to ΔAMH (p=0.35), ΔFSH (p=0.15), ΔAFC (p=0.09), Δ mean ovarian diameters (p=0.57) and ΔPSV (p=0.61). In addition, secondary outcomes such as operative time (p=0.79), ΔHb (p=0.41), postoperative hospital stay (p=0.16), postoperative return to normal activity (p=0.11) and complication rate also did not show any significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bilateral salpingectomy to TLH for prevention of ovarian cancer in women who do not carry a BRCA1/2 mutations do not show negative effects on the ovarian function. In addition, no perioperative complications are related to the salpingectomy step in TLH.
Authors: Austin D Findley; Matthew T Siedhoff; Kumari A Hobbs; John F Steege; Erin T Carey; Christina A McCall; Anne Z Steiner Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Akila Subramaniam; Christina T Blanchard; Britt K Erickson; Jeff Szychowski; Charles A Leath; Joseph R Biggio; Warner K Huh Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Collette R Lessard-Anderson; Kathryn S Handlogten; Rochelle J Molitor; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Amy L Weaver; Jennifer St Sauver; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-10-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Anthony N Karnezis; Kathleen R Cho; C Blake Gilks; Celeste Leigh Pearce; David G Huntsman Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Beth Y Karlan; Jason Thorpe; Kate Watabayashi; Charles W Drescher; Melanie Palomares; Mary B Daly; Pam Paley; Paula Hillard; M Robyn Andersen; Garnet Anderson; Ronny Drapkin; Nicole Urban Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: J Vorwergk; M P Radosa; K Nicolaus; N Baus; J Jimenez Cruz; M Rengsberger; M Gajda; H Diebolder; I B Runnebaum Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 4.553