TY - JOUR
T1 - Salpingectomy vs tubal ligation for sterilization
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Mills, Kerry
AU - Marchand, Greg
AU - Sainz, Katelyn
AU - Azadi, Ali
AU - Ware, Kelly
AU - Vallejo, Janelle
AU - Anderson, Sienna
AU - King, Alexa
AU - Osborn, Asya
AU - Ruther, Stacy
AU - Brazil, Giovanna
AU - Cieminski, Kaitlynne
AU - Hopewell, Sophia
AU - Rials, Lisa
AU - Klipp, Angela
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - risk-reducing salpingectomy
KW - risk-reducing surgery
KW - salpingectomy
KW - sterilization
KW - surgery to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer
KW - tubal ligation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092512274&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.09.011
DO - 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.09.011
M3 - Article
C2 - 32941790
AN - SCOPUS:85092512274
SN - 0002-9378
VL - 224
SP - 258
EP - 265
JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
IS - 3
ER -