Opportunistic salpingectomy versus traditional partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial
Background: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality of all gynecologic malignancies, howeverthere is no proven effective screening for ovarian cancer. Evidence suggests that epithelial ovarian cancer begins in the fallopian tubes. Prophylactic bilateral total salpingectomy has been shown to reduce...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
IMR Press
2022-03-01
|
| Series: | Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.imrpress.com/journal/CEOG/49/3/10.31083/j.ceog4903075 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850169325618462720 |
|---|---|
| author | Rubin Raju Enid Y. Rivera-Chiauzzi Angela C. Thompson Margaret L. Dow Kyle D. Traynor Laura L. Elliott Marnie M. Wetzstein Matthew A. Hathcock Megan E. Branda Vanessa E. Torbenson |
| author_facet | Rubin Raju Enid Y. Rivera-Chiauzzi Angela C. Thompson Margaret L. Dow Kyle D. Traynor Laura L. Elliott Marnie M. Wetzstein Matthew A. Hathcock Megan E. Branda Vanessa E. Torbenson |
| author_sort | Rubin Raju |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality of all gynecologic malignancies, howeverthere is no proven effective screening for ovarian cancer. Evidence suggests that epithelial ovarian cancer begins in the fallopian tubes. Prophylactic bilateral total salpingectomy has been shown to reduce the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer and is now recommended to be considered at the time of sterilization procedures. There are limited well designed clinical trials that compare the safety and feasibility of total salpingectomy to that of traditional partial salpingectomy for tubal sterilization in obstetrics. We thus conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the safety of bilateral total salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery. Methods: We conducted a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Women age 21 years and older who were undergoing cesarean delivery and desired concomitant sterilization were enrolled between May 17, 2017 and July 16, 2018. Stratified randomization was performed based on number of previous cesarean deliveries and their Basal Metabolic Index, into a bilateral total salpingectomy (BTS) group and bilateral partial salpingectomy (BPS) group. All salpingectomies were performed using clamps and suture. The primary outcome was to compare the mean peri-operative hemoglobin change for both groups. Secondary objectives included sterilization completion time, postoperative length of stay, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain and adverse events. Results: Of the 111 women screened, 40 were enrolled and randomized. Of these, 38 underwent the assigned procedure (18 BTS, 20 BPS). No difference in Mean ± SD hemoglobin drop between groups (1.4 ± 0.7 g/dL for the BPS group and 1.8 ± 1.0 g/dL for the BTS group, p = 0.08), however the point estimate of –0.4 is very close to the non-inferiority margin of –0.5, and the CI widely exceeds the non-inferiority margin (95% CI –0.99, 0.17). Therefore non-inferiority was not shown. Mean time to completion of sterilization procedure was significantly longer in the BTS group (16.3 ± 5.6 minutes for the BTS group vs 5.1 ± 1.6 minutes for the BPS group, p < 0.01). No significant differences for other outcome measures. Conclusions: Bilateral total salpingectomy is not non-inferior to tradiational bilateral partial salpingectomy with regards to postoperative hemoglobin drop, and is associated with a small increase in operative time. There, however, was no difference in adverse events, postoperative length of stay and postoperative pain between the two groups. This information may be helpful when counseling patients. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a8ce89c35b064fe2a0714dd70818dbed |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 0390-6663 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022-03-01 |
| publisher | IMR Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology |
| spelling | doaj-art-a8ce89c35b064fe2a0714dd70818dbed2025-08-20T02:20:45ZengIMR PressClinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology0390-66632022-03-014937510.31083/j.ceog4903075S0390-6663(22)01726-2Opportunistic salpingectomy versus traditional partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trialRubin Raju0Enid Y. Rivera-Chiauzzi1Angela C. Thompson2Margaret L. Dow3Kyle D. Traynor4Laura L. Elliott5Marnie M. Wetzstein6Matthew A. Hathcock7Megan E. Branda8Vanessa E. Torbenson9Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN 55902, USADepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN 55902, USADepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN 55902, USADepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Olmsted Medical Center, Rochester, MN 55904, USADepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN 55902, USADepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN 55902, USADivison of Nursing Research, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN 55902, USADivison of Biomedical Statistics&Informatics, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN 55902, USADivison of Biomedical Statistics&Informatics, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN 55902, USADepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN 55902, USABackground: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality of all gynecologic malignancies, howeverthere is no proven effective screening for ovarian cancer. Evidence suggests that epithelial ovarian cancer begins in the fallopian tubes. Prophylactic bilateral total salpingectomy has been shown to reduce the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer and is now recommended to be considered at the time of sterilization procedures. There are limited well designed clinical trials that compare the safety and feasibility of total salpingectomy to that of traditional partial salpingectomy for tubal sterilization in obstetrics. We thus conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the safety of bilateral total salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery. Methods: We conducted a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Women age 21 years and older who were undergoing cesarean delivery and desired concomitant sterilization were enrolled between May 17, 2017 and July 16, 2018. Stratified randomization was performed based on number of previous cesarean deliveries and their Basal Metabolic Index, into a bilateral total salpingectomy (BTS) group and bilateral partial salpingectomy (BPS) group. All salpingectomies were performed using clamps and suture. The primary outcome was to compare the mean peri-operative hemoglobin change for both groups. Secondary objectives included sterilization completion time, postoperative length of stay, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain and adverse events. Results: Of the 111 women screened, 40 were enrolled and randomized. Of these, 38 underwent the assigned procedure (18 BTS, 20 BPS). No difference in Mean ± SD hemoglobin drop between groups (1.4 ± 0.7 g/dL for the BPS group and 1.8 ± 1.0 g/dL for the BTS group, p = 0.08), however the point estimate of –0.4 is very close to the non-inferiority margin of –0.5, and the CI widely exceeds the non-inferiority margin (95% CI –0.99, 0.17). Therefore non-inferiority was not shown. Mean time to completion of sterilization procedure was significantly longer in the BTS group (16.3 ± 5.6 minutes for the BTS group vs 5.1 ± 1.6 minutes for the BPS group, p < 0.01). No significant differences for other outcome measures. Conclusions: Bilateral total salpingectomy is not non-inferior to tradiational bilateral partial salpingectomy with regards to postoperative hemoglobin drop, and is associated with a small increase in operative time. There, however, was no difference in adverse events, postoperative length of stay and postoperative pain between the two groups. This information may be helpful when counseling patients.https://www.imrpress.com/journal/CEOG/49/3/10.31083/j.ceog4903075bilateral salpingectomysterilizationcesarean deliveryovarian cancer |
| spellingShingle | Rubin Raju Enid Y. Rivera-Chiauzzi Angela C. Thompson Margaret L. Dow Kyle D. Traynor Laura L. Elliott Marnie M. Wetzstein Matthew A. Hathcock Megan E. Branda Vanessa E. Torbenson Opportunistic salpingectomy versus traditional partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology bilateral salpingectomy sterilization cesarean delivery ovarian cancer |
| title | Opportunistic salpingectomy versus traditional partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial |
| title_full | Opportunistic salpingectomy versus traditional partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial |
| title_fullStr | Opportunistic salpingectomy versus traditional partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | Opportunistic salpingectomy versus traditional partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial |
| title_short | Opportunistic salpingectomy versus traditional partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial |
| title_sort | opportunistic salpingectomy versus traditional partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery a non inferiority randomized controlled trial |
| topic | bilateral salpingectomy sterilization cesarean delivery ovarian cancer |
| url | https://www.imrpress.com/journal/CEOG/49/3/10.31083/j.ceog4903075 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rubinraju opportunisticsalpingectomyversustraditionalpartialsalpingectomyatthetimeofcesareandeliveryanoninferiorityrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT enidyriverachiauzzi opportunisticsalpingectomyversustraditionalpartialsalpingectomyatthetimeofcesareandeliveryanoninferiorityrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT angelacthompson opportunisticsalpingectomyversustraditionalpartialsalpingectomyatthetimeofcesareandeliveryanoninferiorityrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT margaretldow opportunisticsalpingectomyversustraditionalpartialsalpingectomyatthetimeofcesareandeliveryanoninferiorityrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT kyledtraynor opportunisticsalpingectomyversustraditionalpartialsalpingectomyatthetimeofcesareandeliveryanoninferiorityrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT lauralelliott opportunisticsalpingectomyversustraditionalpartialsalpingectomyatthetimeofcesareandeliveryanoninferiorityrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT marniemwetzstein opportunisticsalpingectomyversustraditionalpartialsalpingectomyatthetimeofcesareandeliveryanoninferiorityrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT matthewahathcock opportunisticsalpingectomyversustraditionalpartialsalpingectomyatthetimeofcesareandeliveryanoninferiorityrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT meganebranda opportunisticsalpingectomyversustraditionalpartialsalpingectomyatthetimeofcesareandeliveryanoninferiorityrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT vanessaetorbenson opportunisticsalpingectomyversustraditionalpartialsalpingectomyatthetimeofcesareandeliveryanoninferiorityrandomizedcontrolledtrial |