Advertisement

Hysterectomy pp 149-154 | Cite as

Indications for Salpingectomy

  • Roberta VenturellaEmail author
Chapter
  • 751 Downloads

Abstract

The uterine tube, also known as Fallopian tube (FT), physiologically carries eggs from the ovary or the pouch of Douglas to the uterus, being the site of normal fertilization. Given their bidirectional motions, moreover, the tubes are able to let cells and substances from the vagina, the cervix and the endometrium to reach the whole abdominal cavity. Therefore, infections occurring in the low genital tract, by reaching the FT, can give rise to pelvic inflammatory diseases (PID), typically associated with anatomical and functional alterations of the fimbriated end of the tubes. The resulting obstruction does not allow the tubal fluid to pass, causing enlargement of the FT, filled by serum (hydrosalpinx), blood (hematosalpinx) or pus (pyosalpinx). Other causes of distal tubal occlusion include adhesions formation from previous surgeries, endometriosis, and cancers of the tube, ovary or other surrounding peritoneum. FT alterations are the main risk factor for the occurrence of ectopic pregnancies (EP), resulted from a fertilized egg staying in the tube rather than implanting into the uterine cavity. These pregnancies cannot be carried to term and can cause the FT rupture with life-threatening abdominal bleeding.

Even if medical therapies can be used to manage both PID and EP, surgery is often preferred, due to its efficacy and safety both in term of anatomical restoration and, when it is possible, future fertility preservation. Following the spread of the new theory, considering the distal FT as site of origin for ovarian and peritoneal serous cancers, salpingectomy is gaining rising consents as a clinical standard both for women needing hysterectomy or other surgeries for pelvic benign pathologies and also as a permanent sterilization method.

Keywords

Ectopic pregnancy Hydrosalpinx Ovarian cancer prevention Pelvic inflammatory disease Salpingectomy Sterilization 

References

  1. 1.
    RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 32, Management of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Nov 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson N, van Voorst S, Sowter MC, Strandell A, Mol BW. Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matorras R, Rabanal A, Prieto B, Diez S, Brouard I, Mendoza R, Exposito A. Hysteroscopic hydrosalpinx occlusion with Essure device in IVF patients when salpingectomy or laparoscopy is contraindicated. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;169:54–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Arpe S, Franceschetti S, Caccetta J, Pietrangeli D, Muzii L, Panici PB. Management of hydrosalpinx before IVF: a literature review. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;1:1–4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang Y, Sun Y, Guo Y, Li TC, Duan H. Salpingectomy and proximal tubal occlusion for hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015;70:33–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Repasy I, Lendvai V, Koppan A, Bodis J, Koppan M. Effect of the removal of the Fallopian tube during hysterectomy on ovarian survival: the orphan ovary syndrome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144:64–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirk E, Bottomley C, Bourne T. Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy and current concepts in the management of pregnancy of unknown location. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:250–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crochet JR, Bastian LA, Chireau MV. Does this woman have an ectopic pregnancy?: the rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA. 2013;309:1722–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farquhar CM. Ectopic pregnancy. Lancet. 2005;366:583–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tulandi T, Tan SL. Advances in reproductive endocrinology and infertility: current trends and developments. UK: Informa Healthcare; 2002. p. 240.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fernandez H, Capmas P, Lucot JP, Resch B, Panel P, Bouyer J. Fertility after ectopic pregnancy: the DEMETER randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1247–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mol F, van Mello NM, Strandell A, Strandell K, Jurkovic D, et al. Salpingotomy versus salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy (ESEP study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383:1483–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tone AA, Salvador S, Finlayson SJ, Tinker AV, Kwon JS, Lee CH, et al. The role of the fallopian tube in ovarian cancer. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2012;10:296–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurman RJ, Shih IM. The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:433–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurman RJ, Shih IM. Molecular pathogenesis and extraovarian origin of epithelial ovarian cancer–shifting the paradigm. Hum Pathol. 2011;42:918–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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;5:35–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manchanda R, Abdelraheim A, Johnson M, Rosenthal A, Benjamin E, Brunell C, Burnell M, Side L, Gessler S, Saridogan E, et al. Outcome of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA carriers and women of unknown mutation status. BJOG. 2011;118:814–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Powell CB, Chen LM, McLennan J, Crawford B, Zaloudek C, Rabban JT, et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in BRCA mutation carriers: experience with a consecutive series of 111 patients using a standardized surgicalpathological protocol. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:846–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crum CP, McKeon FD, Xian W. BRCA, the oviduct, and the space and time continuum of pelvic serous carcinogenesis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:S29–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salvador S, Rempel A, Soslow RA, Gilks B, Hunsman 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;110:408–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiegand KC, Shah SP, Al-Agha OM, Zhao Y, Tse K, Zeng T, et al. ARID1A mutations in endometriosis-associated ovarian carcinomas. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1532–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Medeiros F, Muto MG, 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;30:230–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parker WH, Broder MS, Chang E, Feskanich D, Farquhar C, Liu Z, et al. Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the nurses’ health study. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1027–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, Woo MM, Tone AA, Rozenberg N, Swenerton KD, et al.; Ovarian Cancer Research Program of British Columbia. Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:471.e1-471.11.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada. GOC statement regarding salpingectomy and ovarian cancer prevention. Sep 2011.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thiel J. It sounded like a good idea at the time. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34:611–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tone A, McAlpine J, Finlayson S, Gilks CB, Heywood M, Huntsman D, et al. It sounded like a good idea at the time. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34:1127–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morelli M, Venturella R, Mocciaro R, Di Cello A, Rania E, Lico D, et al. Prophylactic salpingectomy in premenopausal low-risk women for ovarian cancer: primum non nocere. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:448–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reade CJ, Finlayson S, McAlpine J, Tone AA, Fung-Kee-Fung M, Ferguson SE. Risk-reducing salpingectomy in Canada: a survey of obstetrician-Gynaecologists. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35:627–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhou B, Sun QM, Cong RH, Gu HJ, Tang NP, Yang L, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and ovarian cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:641–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Falconer H, Yin L, Grönberg H, Altman D. Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;27:107.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Committee on Gynecologic Practice. ACOG Committee opinion no. 620. Salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:279–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kwon JS, McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, Finlayson SJ, Cohen T, Miller DM, et al. Costs and benefits of opportunistic salpingectomy as an ovarian cancer prevention strategy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:338–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    Dietl J, Wischhusen J, Hauslert SFM. The post-reproductive Fallopian tube: better removed? Hum Reprod. 2011;11:2918–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stock RJ. Histopathologic changes in fallopian tubes subsequent to sterilization procedures. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1983;2:13–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bartz D, Greenberg JA. Sterilization in the United States. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008;1:23–32.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, et al. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2660–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cakmak H, Taylor HS. Implantation failure: molecular mechanisms and clinical treatment. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:242–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Creinin MD, Zite N. Female tubal sterilization: the time has come to routinely consider removal. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:596–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cibula D, Widschwendter M, Majek O, Dusek L. Tubal ligation and the risk of ovarian cancer: review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:55–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Antoniou AC, Rookus M, Andrieu N, Brohet R, Chang-Claude J, Peock S, et al. Reproductive and hormonal factors, and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:601–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Narod SA, Sun P, Ghadirian P, Lynch H, Isaacs C, Garber J, et al. Tubal ligation and risk of ovarian cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: a case-control study. Lancet. 2001;357:1467–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lessard-Anderson CR, Handlogten KS, Molitor RJ, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, Weaver AL, et al. Effect of tubal sterilization technique on risk of serous epithelial ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135:423–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMagna Graecia University of CatanzaroCatanzaroItaly

Personalised recommendations