Reoperation and pain-related outcomes after hysterectomy for endometriosis by oophorectomy status.

BACKGROUND: More research is needed that compares the outcomes between those who underwent a hysterectomy for endometriosis with conservation of one or both ovaries and those who underwent a hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the rate and types of reoperations (primary outcome) and use of other pain-related health services (secondary outcomes) among people who underwent a hysterectomy with conservation of both ovaries, those who underwent a hysterectomy with unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and those who underwent a hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a population-based, retrospective cohort study of 4489 patients aged 19 to 50 years in British Columbia, Canada, who underwent a hysterectomy for endometriosis between 2001 and 2016. Index surgeries were classified as hysterectomy alone (conservation of both ovaries), hysterectomy with unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, or hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Reoperation rate was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes (measured at 3-12 months and 1-5 years after hysterectomy) included physician visits for endometriosis and pelvic pain, prescriptions filled for opioids, and use of hormonal suppression medications and hormone replacement therapy. RESULTS: Reoperation rates were low across all groups, with 89.5% of all patients remaining reoperation free by the end of follow-up (median of 10 years; interquartile range, 6.1-14.3 years). Patients who underwent a hysterectomy alone were more likely to undergo at least 1 reoperation when compared with those who underwent a hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (13% vs 5%; P<.0001), most commonly an oophorectomy or adhesiolysis. When oophorectomy as reoperation was removed in a sensitivity analysis, this difference was partially attenuated (6% of hysterectomy alone group vs 3% of hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy group undergoing at least 1 reoperation). All groups were very similar in terms of rates of physician visits for endometriosis or pelvic pain and the number of days of opioid prescriptions filled. Furthermore, the rate of hormonal suppression medication use was similar among the groups, whereas the rate of prescriptions filled for hormone replacement therapy after hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was 60.6% of patients who filled at least 1 prescription at 3 to 12 months after index surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent a hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy had a lower reoperation rate than those who underwent a hysterectomy with conservation of one or both ovaries. However, there was little difference between the groups for the secondary outcomes measured, including physician visits for endometriosis and pelvic pain, opioid use, and use of hormonal suppression medications, suggesting that persistent pelvic pain after hysterectomy for endometriosis may not differ substantively based on ovarian conservation status. One limitation was the inability to stratify patients by stage of endometriosis or to determine the impact of endometriosis stage or the presence of adnexal disease or deep endometriosis on the outcomes. Moreover, hormone replacement therapy prescriptions was not filled by about 40% of patients after hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, which may have significant health consequences for these individuals undergoing premature surgical menopause. Therefore, strong consideration should be given to ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy for endometriosis.