Evaluation of ovarian function after hysterectomy with or without salpingectomy: A feasible study

The Impact of Opportunistic Salpingectomy on Ovarian Reserve: A Systematic Review

Background: In the last decade, increasing evidence has suggested that high-grade serous ovarian cancers may have their origin in the fallopian tube rather than the ovary. This emerging theory presents an opportunity to prevent epithelial ovarian cancer by incorporating prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy into all surgical procedures for average-risk women. The aim of this review is to investigate the hypothesis that bilateral salpingectomy (BS) may have a negative impact on ovarian reserve, not only following hysterectomy for benign uterine pathologies but also when performed during cesarean sections as a method of sterilization or as a treatment for hydrosalpinx in Assisted Reproductive Technology interventions. Methods: PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were searched for original studies, meta-analyses, and opinion articles published between 2014 and 2024. Results: Out of 114 records from the database search, after the removal of duplicates, 102 articles were considered relevant for the current study. Conclusions: Performing opportunistic salpingectomy seems to have no adverse impact on ovarian function in the short term. However, because there is an existing risk of damaging ovarian blood supply during salpingectomy, there are concerns about potential long-term adverse effects on the ovarian reserve, which need further investigation.

Beyond Sterilization: A Comprehensive Review on the Safety and Efficacy of Opportunistic Salpingectomy as a Preventative Strategy for Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer (OC) is Canada's third most common gynecological cancer, with an estimated 3000 new cases and 1950 deaths projected in 2022. No effective screening has been found to identify OC, especially the most common subtype, high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), at an earlier, curable stage. In patients with hereditary predispositions such as BRCA mutations, the rates of HGSC are significantly elevated, leading to the use of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy as the key preventative intervention. Although surgery has been shown to prevent HGSC in high-risk women, the associated premature menopause has adverse long-term sequelae and mortality due to non-cancer causes. The fact that 75% of HGSCs are sporadic means that most women diagnosed with HGSC will not have had the option to avail of either screening or prevention. Recent research suggests that the fimbrial distal fallopian tube is the most likely origin of HGSC. This has led to the development of a prevention plan for the general population: opportunistic salpingectomy, the removal of both fallopian tubes. This article aims to compile and review the studies evaluating the effect of opportunistic salpingectomy on surgical-related complications, ovarian reserve, cost, and OC incidence when performed along with hysterectomy or instead of tubal ligation in the general population.

Prevention of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Given the challenges with achieving effective and durable treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer, primary prevention is highly desirable. Fortunately, decades of research have provided evidence for several strategies that can be deployed to optimize risk reduction. These include surgery, chemoprevention, and lifestyle factor modifications. These broad categories vary in terms of the magnitude of risk reduction possible, the possible short-term and long-term side effects, the degree of difficulty, and acceptability. Thus, the concept of a risk-based model to personalize preventive interventions is advocated to guide discussion between care providers and women at risk. For women with inherited major gene mutations that greatly increase risk of ovarian cancer, surgical approaches have favorable risk to benefit ratios. Chemoprevention and lifestyle factor modifications portend a lower degree of risk reduction but confer lower risk of undesirable side effects. Since complete prevention is not currently possible, better methods for early detection remain a high priority.

Ovarian cancer prevention by opportunistic salpingectomy is a new de facto standard in Germany

PURPOSE

The most prevalent and aggressive subtype of epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC), high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), originates in many cases from the fallopian tubes. Because of poor prognosis and lack of effective screening for early detection, opportunistic salpingectomy (OS) for prevention of EOC is being implemented into clinical routine in several countries worldwide. Taking the opportunity of a gynecological surgery in women at average cancer risk, extramural fallopian tubes are completely resected preserving the ovaries with their infundibulopelvic blood supply. Until recently, only 13 of the 130 national partner societies of the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) have published a statement on OS. This study aimed to analyze the acceptance of OS in Germany.

METHODS

(1) Survey of German gynecologists in 2015 and 2022 by the Department of Gynecology of the Jena University Hospital in co-operation with the Department of Gynecology at Charité-University Medicine Berlin with support of NOGGO e. V. and AGO e. V. (2) Salpingectomy numbers in Germany for years 2005-2020 as retrieved from the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis).

RESULTS

(1) Survey: Number of participants was 203 in 2015 and 166 in 2022, respectively. Nearly all respondents (2015: 92%, 2022: 98%) have already performed bilateral salpingectomy without oophorectomy in combination with benign hysterectomy with the intention to reduce the risk for malignant (2015: 96%, 2022: 97%) and benign (2015: 47%, 2022: 38%) disorders. Compared to 2015 (56.6%), considerably more survey participants performed OS in > 50% or in all cases in 2022 (89.0%). Recommendation of OS for all women with completed family planning at benign pelvic surgery was approved by 68% in 2015 and 74% in 2022. (2) Case number analysis: In 2020, four times more cases of salpingectomy were reported by German public hospitals compared to 2005 (n = 50,398 vs. n = 12,286). Of all inpatient hysterectomies in German hospitals in 2020, 45% were combined with salpingectomy, and more than 65% in women at the age of 35 to 49 years.

CONCLUSION

Mounting scientific plausibility regarding involvement of fallopian tubes in the pathogenesis of EOC led to change of clinical acceptance of OS in many countries including in Germany. Case number data and widespread expert judgment demonstrate that OS has become a routine procedure in Germany and a de facto standard for primary prevention of EOC.

Effect of hysterectomy on ovarian function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hysterectomy is one of the most frequently gynecologic surgeries performed in premenopausal women. Many premenopausal patients are unwilling to undergo hysterectomy due to the probable decreased ovarian function. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of hysterectomy on ovarian function.

METHODS

A meta-analysis has been reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. We mainly searched the Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases for eligible studies. The outcomes were the levels of common indicators of ovarian function, such as anti-müllerian hormone (AMH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), inhibin B, estradiol (E2) and luteinizing hormone (LH). The evidence was synthesized using meta-analysis via fixed or random effect model according to heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the potential sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The 14 included studies were conducted between 1989 and 2021, involving a total of 1,457 premenopausal women with 760 and 697 in the hysterectomy and control group, respectively. We found that hysterectomy damage ovarian function compared to the control group, with lower AMH level [Weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.56, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -0.72 to -0.39, P = 0.000], higher FSH levels (WMD = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.47 to 4.44, P = 0.000), lower inhibin B levels (WMD = -14.34, 95% CI: -24.69 to -3.99, P = 0.000) and higher LH levels (WMD = 4.07, 95% CI: 1.78 to 6.37, P = 0.000). In addition, E2 levels have a decreasing trend (WMD = -17.13, 95% CI: -35.10 to 0.85, P = 0.631) in the hysterectomy group but were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Hysterectomy has a negative impact on ovarian function, especially in female patients over 40 years old. So, the older patients should closely monitor their ovarian function for early diagnosis and treatment of menopausal symptoms.

Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy or hydrosalpinx: results of the OCASE nationwide population-based database study

STUDY QUESTION

What is the effect of salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy or hydrosalpinx at a young age on ovarian cancer risk compared to no salpingectomy for any reason?

SUMMARY ANSWER

We found no significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy or hydrosalpinx.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Salpingectomy may reduce ovarian cancer incidence, although the lag-time between intervention and therapeutic effect remains to be elucidated.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This nationwide population-based database study uses the Dutch pathology database to identify all women who underwent salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy or hydrosalpinx between January 1990 and December 2012 and compared ovarian cancer incidence to a control group of women who had a benign dermal nevus removed, matched for age at the time and year of procedure.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

After selection and manual control of intervention and control group, ovarian cancer incidence was recorded. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CI for the development of ovarian cancer were calculated with Cox regression analyses, both unadjusted and adjusted for age. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate lag-time between intervention and protective effect.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In all, 18 961 women were included in the intervention group; 17 106 women had a unilateral salpingectomy and 1855 had a bilateral salpingectomy. The control group consisted of 23 686 women. With 14 ovarian cancer cases in the intervention group, the incidence rate (IR) of ovarian cancer was 5.4 (95% CI 3.1-8.9) per 100 000 person-years. In the control group, there were 24 ovarian cancer cases, resulting in an IR of 7.1 (95% CI 4.7-10.5) per 100 000 person-years (P = 0.34). The age-adjusted HR for ovarian cancer was 0.76 (95% CI 0.39-1.47) after salpingectomy. Unilateral salpingectomy resulted in an age-adjusted HR of 0.81 (95% CI 0.41-1.59) and bilateral salpingectomy resulted in an age-adjusted HR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.06-3.16) based on one case. None of our subgroup analysis for lag-time resulted in a significant difference in ovarian cancer incidence between intervention and control group. The difference in ovarian cancer incidence appeared largest in women with at least 8 years of follow-up (P = 0.08).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Due to the young population, ovarian cancer incidence is low, even at the end of follow-up. Furthermore, due to the anonymous nature of the pathology registry, we were unable to adjust for confounding factors.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Although results did not reach statistical significance, they add to the available data on ovarian cancer incidence after salpingectomy. Our subgroup analysis suggests there may be no benefit in the first years following salpingectomy.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Does Saving Uterus Save Ovaries?

Ovarian function after hysterectomy is a subject of much controversy since many years. There is increasing awareness among gynecologists that the ovaries need to be spared at hysterectomy for benign conditions. However the awareness is limited, and many practitioners believe in removal of ovaries at hysterectomy. Removal of ovaries will save lives of patients at risk of developing ovarian cancer. But it will be unnecessary for low-risk women and will in fact endanger their lives by increasing cardiac risks. Recent data suggest that ovarian epithelial cancer arises from tubal epithelium, which adds new option of performing only salpingectomy and sparing ovaries, which will serve dual purpose of preventing ovarian cancer and continuing productive function of ovaries. Reproductive function is lost with hysterectomy. But it may be worth looking at impact of hysterectomy on productive function of ovaries. This editorial will focus on this issue and look at evidence on effects of other gynecological procedures on ovarian function.

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.