Sarah E Gill1, Benjie B Mills. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Greenville Hospital System University Medical Center, Greenville, South Carolina, USA. SGill2@ghs.org
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To gather opinions about the benefits and concerns of performing bilateral salpingectomy without oophorectomy during hysterectomy for benign indications and as a sterilization procedure. DESIGN: Survey study (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: Practicing physicians in US institutions that have obstetrics and gynecology residency programs listed on the FREIDA website were surveyed electronically. INTERVENTION: A validated, standardized questionnaire designed to gather opinions about bilateral salpingectomy performed during hysterectomy or for sterilization was administered via SurveyMonkey to practitioners of obstetrics and gynecology. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Results were compiled and presented as percentages of total responders. A total of 234 surveys were returned. Fifty-four percent of physicians perform bilateral salpingectomy during hysterectomy, most commonly to reduce the risks of cancer (75%) and repeat operation (49.1%). Of the 45.5% of physicians who do not perform bilateral salpingectomy during hysterectomy, most (69.4%) believe there is no benefit. Fifty-eight percent of practitioners believe that bilateral salpingectomy is the most effective method of sterilization after age 35 years but choose this method only in patients in whom one sterilization procedure has failed or because of tubal disease. Only 7.2% of surgeons prefer it as an interval sterilization procedure. CONCLUSION: Most practitioners believe that bilateral salpingectomy is beneficial. Most also believe that bilateral salpingectomy is the most effective sterilization procedure; however, only 7.2% use this method as an interval procedure. More data are needed to evaluate the prophylactic effect of bilateral salpingectomy against postoperative sequelae.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To gather opinions about the benefits and concerns of performing bilateral salpingectomy without oophorectomy during hysterectomy for benign indications and as a sterilization procedure. DESIGN: Survey study (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: Practicing physicians in US institutions that have obstetrics and gynecology residency programs listed on the FREIDA website were surveyed electronically. INTERVENTION: A validated, standardized questionnaire designed to gather opinions about bilateral salpingectomy performed during hysterectomy or for sterilization was administered via SurveyMonkey to practitioners of obstetrics and gynecology. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Results were compiled and presented as percentages of total responders. A total of 234 surveys were returned. Fifty-four percent of physicians perform bilateral salpingectomy during hysterectomy, most commonly to reduce the risks of cancer (75%) and repeat operation (49.1%). Of the 45.5% of physicians who do not perform bilateral salpingectomy during hysterectomy, most (69.4%) believe there is no benefit. Fifty-eight percent of practitioners believe that bilateral salpingectomy is the most effective method of sterilization after age 35 years but choose this method only in patients in whom one sterilization procedure has failed or because of tubal disease. Only 7.2% of surgeons prefer it as an interval sterilization procedure. CONCLUSION: Most practitioners believe that bilateral salpingectomy is beneficial. Most also believe that bilateral salpingectomy is the most effective sterilization procedure; however, only 7.2% use this method as an interval procedure. More data are needed to evaluate the prophylactic effect of bilateral salpingectomy against postoperative sequelae.
Authors: Mary B Daly; Charles W Dresher; Melinda S Yates; Joanne M Jeter; Beth Y Karlan; David S Alberts; Karen H Lu Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2015-01-13
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
Authors: Miranda P Steenbeek; Laura A M van Lieshout; Johanna W M Aarts; Jurgen M J Piek; Sjors F P J Coppus; Leon F A G Massuger; Rosella P M G Hermens; Joanne A de Hullu Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 4.401