Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

LAVH superior to TVH when concomitant salpingo-oophorectomy is intended in prolapse hysterectomy: a comparative cohort study

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This comparative cohort study evaluated the influence of surgical route for prolapse hysterectomy (vaginal or laparoscopically assisted) on the achievement of intended elective salpingo-oophorectomy, which was a procedural goal planned with the patient before primary vaginal native-tissue prolapse surgery.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH; n = 163) or laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH; n = 144) and vaginal native-tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse at Jena University Hospital were enrolled.

Results

Peri- and postoperative parameters, including Clavien–Dindo (CD) classification of surgical complications, were compared between groups using Student’s t test, Fisher’s exact test, and multivariable regression. Patient characteristics were similar, except that grade IV prolapse was more common in the LAVH group (p < 0.001). The following parameters differed between the TVH and LAVH groups: concomitant salpingectomy (1.2% vs. 34%) and salpingo-oophorectomy (45% vs. 66%), non-performance of intended salpingo-oophorectomy (36% vs. 0% OR 0.006, 95% CI < 0.001–0.083), adhesiolysis (0% vs. 44%), CD II–III complications (51% vs. 14.6% p < 0.001), operating time (153 ± 61 vs. 142 ± 27 min), and postoperative in-patient days (9.02 ± 4.9 vs. 4.99 ± 0.96; all p < 0.001).

Conclusions

LAVH enabled the safe performance of planned concomitant salpingo-oophorectomy in all cases. To achieve the procedural goal in such cases, laparoscopic assistance in prolapse hysterectomy should be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

CD:

Clavien–Dindo

IUGA:

International Urogynecological Association

LAVH:

Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

TVH:

Total vaginal hysterectomy

References

  1. Piek JM, van Diest PJ, Zweemer RP, Jansen JW, Poort-Keesom RJ, Menko FH, Gille JJ, Jongsma AP, Pals G, Kenemans P, Verheijen RH (2001) Dysplastic changes in prophylactically removed Fallopian tubes of women predisposed to developing ovarian cancer. J Pathol. 195(4):451–456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Carlson JW, Miron A, Jarboe EA, Parast MM, Hirsch MS, Lee Y, Muto MG, Kindelberger D, Crum CP (2008) Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma: its potential role in primary peritoneal serous carcinoma and serous cancer prevention. J Clin Oncol. 26(25):4160–4165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Levine DA, Argenta PA, Yee CJ, Marshall DS, Olvera N, Bogomolniy F, Rahaman JA, Robson ME, Offit K, Barakat RR, Soslow RA, Boyd J (2003) Fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinomas associated with BRCA mutations. J Clin Oncol 21(22):4222–4227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bowtell DD (2010) The genesis and evolution of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 10(11):803–808

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kurman RJ, Shih IEM (2011) Molecular pathogenesis and extraovarian origin of epithelial ovarian cancer–shifting the paradigm. Hum Pathol 42(7):918–931

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tone AA, Salvador S, Finlayson SJ, Tinker AV, Kwon JS, Lee CH, Cohen T, Ehlen T, Lee M, Carey MS, Heywood M, Pike J, Hoskins PJ, Stuart GC, Swenerton KD, Huntsman DG, Gilks CB, Miller DM, McAlpine JN (2012) The role of the fallopian tube in ovarian cancer. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 10(5):296–306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Falconer H, Yin L, Grönberg H, Altman D (2015) Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide population-based study. JNCI 107(2):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vorwergk J, Radosa MP, Nicolaus K, Baus N, Jimenez Cruz J, Rensberger M et al (2014) Prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy (PBS) to reduce ovarian cancer risk incorporated in standard premenopausal hysterectomy: complications and re-operation rate. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 140:859–865

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dietl J, Wischhusen J, Häusler SFM (2011) The post-reproductive Fallopian tube: better removed? Human Reprod 26(11):2918–2924

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dwyer PL (2012) Ovarian cancer and the pelvic floor surgeon: the case for prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy during POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J 23:655–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2014) The distal Fallopian tube as the origin of non-uterine pelvic high-grade serous carcinomas. Scientific Impact Paper No. 44

  12. http://www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/DE/Content/Publikation/Krebs_in_Deutschland/kid_2012/kid_2012_c56.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

  13. Bougie O, Weberpals JI (2011) Clinical considerations of BRCA1- and BRCA2-mutation carriers: a review. Int J Surg Oncol 2011:374012

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB (2003) New York Breast Cancer Study Group: Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 302:643–646

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Research Data (1973–2009), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch. [released April 2012 based on November 2011 submission]. http://www.seer.cancer.gov

  16. Marchetti C, De Felice F, Palaia I et al (2014) Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: a meta-analysis on impact on ovarian cancer risk and all cause mortality in BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers. BMC Womens Health. 12(14):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-014-0150-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rhiem K, Foth D, Wappenschmidt B, Gevensleben H, Büttner R, Ulrich U, Schmutzler RK (2011) Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283:623–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mothes AR, Radosa MP, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Runnebaum IB (2016) Risk index for pelvic organ prolapse based on established individual risk factors. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293:617–624

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Farthmann J, Watermann D, Zamperoni H, Wolf C, Fink T, Gabriel B (2017) Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in elderly patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295:1421–1425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Asante A, Whiteman MK, Kulkarni A, Cox S, Marchbanks PA, Jamieson DJ (2010) Elective oophorectomy in the United States. Trends and in-hospital complications, 1987–2006. Obstet Gynecol 116(5):1088–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mothes AR, Radosa MP, Runnebaum IB (2015) Systematic assessment of surgical complications in laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 194:228–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mothes AR, Mothes HK, Radosa MP, Runnebaum IB (2015) Systematic assessment of surgical complications in 438 cases of vaginal native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse adopting Clavien–Dindo classification. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291:1297–1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmidt EH, De Wilde RL (1998) Standardverfahren der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie in der Frauenheilkunde. Gerog Thieme, Stuttgart/New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Brown JS, Waetjen LE, Subak LL, Thom DH, Van den Eeden S, Vittinghoff E (2002) Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States, 1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186(4):712–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bongers M (2016) Advances in laparoscopic surgery have made vaginal hysterectomy in the absence of prolapse obsolete: FOR: The laparoscopic approach is suitable for almost all hysterectomies. BJOG 123(4):633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dain L, Abramov Y (2011) Factors affecting the feasibility of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy during vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 51(4):307–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jacoby VL, Grady D, Wactawski-Wende J, Manson JE, Allison MA, Kuppermann M, Sarto GE, Robbins J, Phillips L, Martin LW, O’Sullivan MJ, Jackson R, Rodabough RJ, Stefanick ML (2011) Oophorectomy vs ovarian conservation with hysterectomy: cardiovascular disease, hip fracture, and cancer in the Women’s health initiative observational study. Arch Intern Med 171(8):760–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ghoniem G, Hammett J (2015) Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery practice patterns: IUGA member survey. Int Urogynecol J 26(10):1489–1494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gross CP, Nicholson W, Powe NR (1999) Factors affecting prophylactic oophorectomy in postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol. 94(6):962–968

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nwosu CR, Gupta JK (1999) Abdominal, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: a feasibility study for further evaluation in randomized trials. Surg Endosc 13(2):148–150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Oliver Perez MR, Magriñá J, García AT, Jiménez Lopez JS (2015) Prophylactic salpingectomy and prophylactic salpingoophorectomy for adnexal high-grade serous epithelial carcinoma: A reappraisal. Surg Oncol. 24(4):335–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yoon SH, Kim SN, Shim SH, Kang SB, Lee SJ (2016) Bilateral salpingectomy can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer in the general population: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 55:38–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Morelli M, Venturella R, Mocciaro R, Di Cello A, Rania E, Lico D, D’Alessandro P, Zullo F (2013) Prophylactic salpingectomy in premenopausal low-risk women for ovarian cancer: primum non nocere. Gynecol Oncol 129(3):448–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Venturella R, Morelli M, Lico D, Di Cello A, Rocca M, Sacchinelli A, Mocciaro R, D’Alessandro P, Maiorana A, Gizzo S, Zullo F (2015) Wide excision of soft tissues adjacent to the ovary and fallopian tube does not impair the ovarian reserve in women undergoing prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy: results from a randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril 104(5):1332–1339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Song T, Kim MK, Kim ML, Jung YW, Yun BS, Seong SJ, Kwon SH (2016 ) Impact of opportunistic salpingectomy on anti-Müllerian hormone in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BJOG (Epub ahead of print)

  37. Robert M, Cenaiko D, Sepandj J, Iwanicki S (2015) Success and complications of salpingectomy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(5):864–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, University Women’s Hospital Jena, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany

    Anke R. Mothes, Anja Schlachetzki, Kristin Nicolaus, Julia Vorwergk, Marc P. Radosa & Ingo B. Runnebaum

  2. Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Documentation, University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany

    Thomas Lehmann

  3. Department of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany

    Henning K. Mothes

Authors
  1. Anke R. Mothes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anja Schlachetzki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristin Nicolaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julia Vorwergk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marc P. Radosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Henning K. Mothes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ingo B. Runnebaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ARM: protocol/project development, data collection and data management, patient recruitment, responsible surgeon, and manuscript writing/editing. AS: patient recruitment, data collection, and data management. KN: data collection and management. JV: data collection and management. TL: statistics and data management. MPR: responsible surgeon and data management. HKM: project development and data management, and editing of manuscript. IBR: patient recruitment, responsible surgeon, and editing of manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingo B. Runnebaum.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mothes, A.R., Schlachetzki, A., Nicolaus, K. et al. LAVH superior to TVH when concomitant salpingo-oophorectomy is intended in prolapse hysterectomy: a comparative cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 298, 1131–1137 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4909-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4909-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation