Survey of pelvic reconstructive surgeons on performance of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of pelvic organ prolapse repair

  • Daisy B. Hassani
  • Jeffrey M. Mangel
  • Sangeeta T. Mahajan
  • Adonis K. Hijaz
  • Sherif El-Nashar
  • David Sheyn
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

Opportunistic salpingectomy (OS) at the time of benign hysterectomy has recently emerged as a potential primary preventive modality for ovarian cancer. Our objective was to determine whether the reported rate of OS at the time of prolapse surgery is similar to the rate of OS at the time of gynecologic surgery for non-prolapse indications.


An anonymous online survey was sent to the Society of Gynecologic Surgery members. Responses were divided into surgeons who did and did not perform OS at the time of prolapse repair. Differences between surgeons who did and did not perform OS were evaluated using the chi-square test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify which responses related to increased odds of performing OS.


There were 117 (33.1%) completed responses; of these, 98 (83.8%) reported performing OS at the time of prolapse repair, which was similar to the reported rate of OS at the time of hysterectomy for non-prolapse indications, 82.1%. After multivariable logistic regression, performance of salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy for a non-prolapse indication (aOR: 17.9, 95% CI: 3.11–42.01), use of a laparoscopic or robotic surgical approach (aOR 14.1, 95% CI: 1.81–32.21) and completion of an FPMRS fellowship (aOR: 3.47, 95% CI: 1.20–10.02) were associated with a higher likelihood of performing OS at the time of prolapse repair.


OS at the time prolapse repair is performed more frequently with concomitant hysterectomy compared with OS at the time of post-hysterectomy prolapse repair and is similar to rates of OS performed at the time of hysterectomy for non-prolapse indications.


Opportunistic salpingectomy Pelvic organ prolapse Ovarian cancer 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2014 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Accessed November 25, 2017.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Menon U, Kalsi J, Jacobs I. The UKCTOCS experience—reasons for hope? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:S18–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, Johnson CC, Lamerato L, Isaacs C, et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salvador S, Gilks B, Köbel M, Huntsman D, Rosen B, Miller D. The fallopian tube: primary site of most pelvic high-grade serous carcinomas. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(1):58–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salvador S, Rempel A, Soslow RA, Gilks B, Huntsman D, Miller D. Chromosomal instability in fallopian tube precursor lesions of serous carcinoma and frequent monoclonality of synchronous ovarian and fallopian tube mucosal serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110(3):408–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leeper K, Garcia R, Swisher E, Goff B, Greer B, Paley P. Pathologic findings in prophylactic oophorectomy specimens in high-risk women. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;87(1):52–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colgan TJ, Murphy J, Cole DE, Narod S, Rosen B. Occult carcinoma in prophylactic oophorectomy specimens: prevalence and association with BRCA germline mutation status. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25(10):1283–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A, Hirsch MS, Feltmate C, Medeiros F, et al. Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(2):161–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crum CP, Drapkin R, Kindelberger D, Medeiros F, Miron A, Lee Y. Lessons from BRCA: the tubal fimbria emerges as an origin for pelvic serous cancer. Clin Med Res. 2007;5(1):35–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaitskell K, Coffey K, Green J, Pirie K, Reeves GK, Ahmed AA, et al. Tubal ligation and incidence of 26 site-specific cancers in the million women study. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:1033–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rice MS, Hankinson SE, Tworoger SS. Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, unilateral oophorectomy, and risk of ovarian cancer in the nurses’ health studies. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):192–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mikhail E, Salemi JL, Mogos MF, Hart S, Salihu HM, Imudia AN. National trends of adnexal surgeries at the time of hysterectomy for benign indication, United States, 1998–2011. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(5):713–e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gill SE, Mills BB. Physician opinions regarding elective bilateral salpingectomy with hysterectomy and for sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(4):517–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones NL, Schulkin J, Urban RR, Wright JD, Burke WM, Hou JY, et al. Physicians’ perspectives and practice patterns toward opportunistic salpingectomy in high-and low-risk women. Cancer Investig. 2017;35(1):51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones KA, Shepherd JP, Oliphant SS, Wang L, Bunker CH, Lowder JL. Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979–2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(5):501–e1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Potz FL, Tomasch G, Polterauer S, Laky R, Marth C, Tamussino K. Incidental (prophylactic) salpingectomy at benign gynecologic surgery and cesarean section: a survey of practice in Austria. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016;76(12):1325–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kapurubandara S, Qin V, Gurram D, Anpalagan A, Merkur H, Hogg R, et al. Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy during gynaecological surgery for benign disease: a survey of current Australian practice. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55(6):606–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Venturella R, Rocca M, Lico D, Trapasso S, Di Cello A, Gizzo S, et al. Prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy for the prevention of ovarian cancers: what is happening in Italy? Eur J Cancer Prev. 2016;25(5):410–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robert M, Cenaiko D, Sepandj J, Iwanicki S. Success and complications of salpingectomy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(5):864–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bradley MS, Visco AG. Role of salpingectomy at the time of urogynecologic surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(5):385–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lamblin G, Meysonnier C, Moret S, Nadaud B, Mellier G, Chene G. Opportunistic salpingectomy during vaginal hysterectomy for a benign pathological condition. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;1-7.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kho RM, Wechter ME. Operative outcomes of opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in low-risk premenopausal women: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(2):218–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Antosh DD, High R, Brown HW, Oliphant SS, Abed H, Philip N, et al. Feasibility of prophylactic salpingectomy during vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(5):605–e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garcia C, Martin M, Tucker LY, Lyon L, Armstrong MA, McBride-Allen S, et al. Experience with opportunistic salpingectomy in a large, community-based health system in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(2):277–83.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Lieshout LA, Pijlman B, Vos MC, de Groot MJ, Houterman S, Coppus SF, et al. Opportunistic salpingectomy in women undergoing hysterectomy: results from the HYSTUB randomised controlled trial. Maturitas. 2018;107:1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tehranian A, Zangbar RH, Aghajani F, Sepidarkish M, Rafiei S, Esfidani T. Effects of salpingectomy during abdominal hysterectomy on ovarian reserve: a randomized controlled trial. Gynecol Surg. 2017;14(1):17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mohamed AA, Yosef AH, James C, Al-Hussaini TK, Bedaiwy MA, Amer SA. Ovarian reserve after salpingectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jones K, Wang G, Romano R, St Marie P, Harmanli O. Colpocleisis: a survey of current practice patterns. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(4):276–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mikami M, Nagase S, Yamagami W, Ushijma K, Tashiro H, Katabuchi H. Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy during benign gynecological surgery for ovarian cancer prevention: a survey of gynecologic oncology committee of japan society of obstetrics and gynecology. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28(4).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Conrad LB, Ramirez PT, Burke W, Naumann RW, Ring KL, Munsell MF, et al. Role of minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: an updated survey of members of the society of gynecologic oncology. Int J Gynecol Cancer: Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc. 2015;25(6):1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospitals Case Medical CenterClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, MetroHealth Medical CenterCase Western Reserve University School of MedicineClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of UrologyUniversity Hospitals Cleveland Medical CenterClevelandUSA
  4. 4.Division of Female Urology, Department of UrologyUniversity Hospitals Cleveland Medical CenterClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations