Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar;111(3):173-177.
doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000779.

Risk-Reducing Salpingectomy Versus Standard Tubal Sterilization: Lessons From Offering Women Options for Interval Sterilization

Matthew L Zerden  1 , Tara Castellano  1 , Kemi M Doll  1 , Gretchen S Stuart  1 , M Cris Munoz  1 , Kim A Boggess  1
Affiliations

Risk-Reducing Salpingectomy Versus Standard Tubal Sterilization: Lessons From Offering Women Options for Interval Sterilization

Matthew L Zerden et al. South Med J. 2018 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: In women receiving sterilization, the removal of the entire fallopian tube, a procedure referred to as a risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS), reduces subsequent ovarian cancer risk compared with standard tubal sterilization procedures. There are limited data on which surgical procedure women will choose when educated about the benefits of an RRS. Our objective was to study the proportion of women desiring sterilization that would choose an RRS.

Methods: This cohort study included women 30 years of age and older with a living biological child who requested laparoscopic sterilization at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants were given a decision aid and offered an RRS or a standard tubal sterilization procedure with titanium clips. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of women who would choose an RRS. Other outcomes included estimated blood loss and operative time, which was compared between groups, along with complications.

Results: Fourteen of the 18 (78%) women who participated in our study chose RRS. Estimated blood loss and operating time were similar among women who underwent RRS and standard tubal sterilizations. There were no significant complications in either group. The study was ended early based on emerging data and a change in national practice patterns.

Conclusions: Because of the elective nature of sterilization and the complexities of cancer risk reduction, a patient-centered approach is beneficial for sterilization counseling. Our results support offering RRS as an alternative to standard tubal sterilization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig.
Fig.
Flow of participants approached for risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. United Nations. World contraceptive patterns 2013. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/family/con.... Accessed December 29, 2017.
    1. Daniels K, Daugherty J, Jones J, et al. Current contraceptive use and variation by selected characteristics among women aged 15–44: United States, 2011–2013. Natl Health Stat Rep 2015;86:1–14. - PubMed
    1. Society of Gynecologic Oncology. SGO Clinical Practice Statement: salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. https://www.sgo.org/clinicalpractice/guidelines/sgo-clinical-practice-st.... Published November 2013. Accessed December 29, 2017.
    1. Creinin MD, Zite N. Female tubal sterilization: the time has come to routinely consider removal. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:596–599. - PubMed
    1. Madsen C, Baandrup L, Dehlendorff C, et al. Tubal ligation and salpingectomy and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumors: anationwide case-control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:86–94. - PubMed

Publication types