Salpingectomy vs tubal ligation for sterilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: After strong evidence and major organizations recommending salpingectomy over tubal ligation, we sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the intraoperative attributes and complication rates associated with these 2 procedures. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and clinical trials registries without time or language restrictions. The search was conducted in February 2020. Database searches revealed 74 potential studies, of which 11 were examined at the full-text level. Of these, 6 studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 5 studies were included in the meta-analysis. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing salpingectomy with tubal ligation in women seeking sterilization. We included studies that also had at least 1 outcome listed in the population/patient problem, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time. Articles were excluded if they did not meet the inclusion criteria or if data were not reported and the authors did not respond to inquiries. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed by 2 authors independently using the blinded coding assignment function or EPPI-Reviewer 4. Conflicting selections were resolved by consensus. The quality of included studies was determined using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias for each study; disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: There were few differences between the procedures, with no differences in most important clinical outcomes (antimüllerian hormone, blood loss, length of hospital stay, pre- or postoperative complications, or wound infections). A single study reported a reduced rate of pregnancies with salpingectomy (risk ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.02), but this did not reach statistical significance (P=.05). CONCLUSION: We conclude from these data that salpingectomy is as safe and efficacious as tubal ligation for sterilization and may be preferred, where appropriate, to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.

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.