Advertisement

Paradigm shift from tubal ligation to opportunistic salpingectomy at cesarean delivery in the United States

      Background

      Opportunistic salpingectomy is now recommended at the time of routine gynecologic surgery to reduce the risk of future ovarian cancer, and performance of opportunistic salpingectomy has increased markedly at the time of benign hysterectomy. Salpingectomy has also been suggested to be feasible at the time of cesarean delivery in women desiring sterilization; however, uptake has not been previously studied on a national level.

      Objective

      This study aimed to examine recent population trends in the utilization and characteristics of salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery in the United States.

      Study Design

      This is a population-based retrospective observational study querying the National Inpatient Sample between October 2015 and December 2018. The primary outcome measure was the temporal trend of bilateral salpingectomy at cesarean delivery, assessed with linear segmented regression with log transformation utilizing 3-month time increments. The secondary outcome measures included patient characteristics associated with bilateral salpingectomy, assessed with a multinomial regression model, and surgical outcome (hemorrhage, blood transfusion, hysterectomy, and oophorectomy) at the time of bilateral salpingectomy vs bilateral tubal ligation, assessed with generalized estimating equation in a propensity score-matched model.

      Results

      There were 3,813,823 women at the age of 15 to 49 years who had cesarean deliveries included, of whom 397,260 (10.4%) had bilateral salpingectomy and 203,400 (5.3%) had bilateral tubal ligation overall. During the time period studied, performance of bilateral salpingectomy among women undergoing cesarean delivery significantly increased from 4.6% to 13.2% (odds ratio for the fourth quarter of 2018 vs the fourth quarter of 2015, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 2.63–2.75; Figure panel). In contrast, performance of bilateral tubal ligation among women undergoing cesarean delivery significantly decreased from 11.3% to 2.4% (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.19–0.21). By the third quarter of 2016, the number of women who had bilateral salpingectomy exceeded those who had bilateral tubal ligation at cesarean delivery (8.6% vs 7.3%). Increasing the utilization of bilateral salpingectomy did not vary across age groups; the salpingectomy rate increased from 7.5% to 21.1% among women at the age of ≥35 years and from 3.8% to 10.7% among women at the age of <35 years (both, P<.001). In a propensity score matched model, women in the bilateral salpingectomy group were more likely to have hemorrhage (3.8% vs 3.1%; odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–1.33), blood product transfusion (2.1% vs 1.8%; odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–1.30), hysterectomy (0.8% vs 0.4%; odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.84–2.82), and oophorectomy (0.3% vs 0.2%; odds ratio, 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.47–2.79) than those in the bilateral tubal ligation group. When restricted to the nonhysterectomy cases, the bilateral salpingectomy group had a higher rate of hemorrhage (3.4% vs 3.0%; odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–1.26) and oophorectomy (0.3% vs 0.1%; odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.22–2.50) than the bilateral tubal ligation group.

      Conclusion

      In the United States, the utilization of bilateral salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery increased rapidly between 2015 and 2018, replacing tubal ligation as the most common type of sterilization performed with cesarean delivery. The higher surgical morbidity in the bilateral salpingectomy group than the bilateral tubal ligation group observed in this study warrants further investigation.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Cancer stat fact: ovarian cancer. National Cancer Institute, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program.
        (Available at:)
        • Kurman R.J.
        • Shih I.M.
        The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34: 433-443
        • Falconer H.
        • Yin L.
        • Grönberg H.
        • Altman D.
        Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide population-based study.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015; 107: dju410
        • Lessard-Anderson C.R.
        • Handlogten K.S.
        • Molitor R.J.
        • et al.
        Effect of tubal sterilization technique on risk of serous epithelial ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 135: 423-427
        • Madsen C.
        • Baandrup L.
        • Dehlendorff C.
        • Kjaer S.K.
        Tubal ligation and salpingectomy and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumors: a nationwide case-control study.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015; 94: 86-94
        • Kwon J.S.
        • McAlpine J.N.
        • Hanley G.E.
        • et al.
        Costs and benefits of opportunistic salpingectomy as an ovarian cancer prevention strategy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125: 338-345
        • Ely L.K.
        • Truong M.
        The role of opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy vs tubal occlusion or ligation for ovarian cancer prophylaxis.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24: 371-378
        • Mandelbaum R.S.
        • Smith M.B.
        • Violette C.J.
        • et al.
        Conservative surgery for ovarian torsion in young women: perioperative complications and national trends.
        BJOG. 2020; 127: 957-965
        • Hanley G.E.
        • McAlpine J.N.
        • Pearce C.L.
        • Miller D.
        The performance and safety of bilateral salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention in the United States.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 216: 270.e1-270.e9
        • Shinar S.
        • Blecher Y.
        • Alpern S.
        • et al.
        Total bilateral salpingectomy vs partial bilateral salpingectomy for permanent sterilization during cesarean delivery.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 295: 1185-1189
        • Yang M.
        • Du Y.
        • Hu Y.
        Complete salpingectomy versus tubal ligation during cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • Powell C.B.
        • Alabaster A.
        • Simmons S.
        • et al.
        Salpingectomy for sterilization: change in practice in a large integrated health care system, 2011-2016.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130: 961-967
        • Potter J.E.
        • Stevenson A.J.
        • White K.
        • Hopkins K.
        • Grossman D.
        Hospital variation in postpartum tubal sterilization rates in California and Texas.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 152-158
        • Martin J.A.
        • Hamilton B.E.
        • Osterman M.J.K.
        • Driscoll A.K.
        Births: final data for 2018.
        Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019; 68: 1-47
      2. McDermott KW, Freeman WJ, Elixhauser A. Overview of operating room procedures During inpatient stays in U.S. Hospitals. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project 2014: Statistical Brief #233 (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. Rockville, (MD), 2006. Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb233-Operating-Room-Procedures-United-States-2014.pdf. Accessed July 16, 2021.

        • Subramaniam A.
        • Blanchard C.T.
        • Erickson B.K.
        • et al.
        Feasibility of complete salpingectomy compared with standard postpartum tubal ligation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132: 20-27
        • Roeckner J.T.
        • Sawangkum P.
        • Sanchez-Ramos L.
        • Duncan J.R.
        Salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 135: 550-557
        • Venkatesh K.K.
        • Clark L.H.
        • Stamilio D.M.
        Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy vs tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 220: 106.e1-106.e10
      3. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 774: opportunistic salpingectomy as a strategy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133: e279-e284
        • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
        HCUP National Inpatient Sample (NIS).
        (Available at:)
        www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp
        Date accessed: July 12, 2020
        • Soni A.
        • Fingar K.R.
        • Reid L.D.
        Obstetric delivery inpatient stays involving substance use disorders and related clinical outcomes, 2016.
        (Available at:) (Accessed December 7, 2020)
        • Garcia G.
        • Richardson D.M.
        • Gonzales K.L.
        • Cuevas A.G.
        Trends and disparities in postpartum sterilization after cesarean section, 2000 through 2008.
        Womens Health Issues. 2015; 25: 634-640
        • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
        NIS description of data elements. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.
        (Available at:)
        • National Cancer Institute
        Joinpoint trend analysis software.
        (Available at:)
        https://surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint
        Date accessed: July 12, 2020
        • Kim H.J.
        • Fay M.P.
        • Feuer E.J.
        • Midthune D.N.
        Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates.
        Stat Med. 2000; 19: 335-351
        • Austin P.C.
        An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies.
        Multivariate Behav Res. 2011; 46: 399-424
        • Austin P.C.
        Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies.
        Pharm Stat. 2011; 10: 150-161
        • Chan L.M.
        • Westhoff C.L.
        Tubal sterilization trends in the United States.
        Fertil Steril. 2010; 94: 1-6
        • von Elm E.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Egger M.
        • et al.
        The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.
        Int J Surg. 2014; 12: 1495-1499
        • Cibula D.
        • Widschwendter M.
        • Májek O.
        • Dusek L.
        Tubal ligation and the risk of ovarian cancer: review and meta-analysis.
        Hum Reprod Update. 2011; 17: 55-67
        • Rice M.S.
        • Murphy M.A.
        • Vitonis A.F.
        • et al.
        Tubal ligation, hysterectomy and epithelial ovarian cancer in the New England Case-Control Study.
        Int J Cancer. 2013; 133: 2415-2421
        • OuYang Z.
        • Yin Q.
        • Wu J.
        • Zhong B.
        • Zhang M.
        • Li F.
        Ectopic pregnancy following in vitro fertilization after bilateral salpingectomy: a review of the literature.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020; 254: 11-14
        • Creinin M.D.
        • Zite N.
        Female tubal sterilization: the time has come to routinely consider removal.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 124: 596-599
        • Clark N.V.
        • Endicott S.P.
        • Jorgensen E.M.
        • et al.
        Review of sterilization techniques and clinical updates.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018; 25: 1157-1164
        • Peterson H.B.
        • Xia Z.
        • Hughes J.M.
        • Wilcox L.S.
        • Tylor L.R.
        • Trussell J.
        The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of sterilization.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 174: 1161-1168
        • Medeiros F.
        • Muto M.G.
        • Lee Y.
        • et al.
        The tubal fimbria is a preferred site for early adenocarcinoma in women with familial ovarian cancer syndrome.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2006; 30: 230-236
        • Dilley S.E.
        • Havrilesky L.J.
        • Bakkum-Gamez J.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2017; 146: 373-379
        • Danis R.B.
        • Della Badia C.R.
        • Richard S.D.
        Postpartum permanent sterilization: could bilateral salpingectomy replace bilateral tubal ligation?.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23: 928-932
        • Garcia C.
        • Moskowitz O.M.
        • Chisholm C.A.
        • et al.
        Salpingectomy compared with tubal ligation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132: 29-34
        • Ferrari F.
        • Forte S.
        • Prefumo F.
        • Sartori E.
        • Odicino F.
        Opportunistic salpingectomy during postpartum contraception procedures at elective and unscheduled cesarean delivery.
        Contraception. 2019; 99: 373-376
        • Ganer Herman H.
        • Gluck O.
        • Keidar R.
        • et al.
        Ovarian reserve following cesarean section with salpingectomy vs tubal ligation: a randomized trial.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217: 472.e1-472.e6
        • Hanley G.E.
        • Kwon J.S.
        • McAlpine J.N.
        • Huntsman D.G.
        • Finlayson S.J.
        • Miller D.
        Examining indicators of early menopause following opportunistic salpingectomy: a cohort study from British Columbia, Canada.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 223: 221.e1-221.e11
        • van Lieshout L.A.M.
        • Steenbeek M.P.
        • De Hullu J.A.
        • et al.
        Hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy vs hysterectomy alone.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 8CD012858

      Linked Article