Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada.
Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;223(2):221.e1-221.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.005. Epub 2020 Feb 15.
The fallopian tube may often be the site of origin for the most common and lethal form of ovarian cancer, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. As a result, many colleges of obstetrics and gynecology, which include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, are recommending surgical removal of the fallopian tube (bilateral salpingectomy) at the time of other gynecologic surgeries (particularly hysterectomy and tubal sterilization) in women at general population risk for ovarian cancer, collectively referred to as opportunistic salpingectomy. Previous research has illustrated no increased risk of complications after opportunistic salpingectomy. However, most studies that have examined potential hormonal consequences of opportunistic salpingectomy have had limited follow-up time and have focused on surrogate hormonal markers.
We examine whether there are differences in physician visits for menopause and filling a prescription for hormone replacement therapy among women who undergo opportunistic salpingectomy in the population of British Columbia, Canada.
We identified all women who were ≤50 years old in British Columbia who underwent opportunistic salpingectomy from 2008-2014. We compared women who underwent opportunistic salpingectomy at hysterectomy with women who underwent hysterectomy alone and women who underwent opportunistic salpingectomy for sterilization with women who underwent tubal ligation. We used Cox Proportional hazards models to model time to physician visits for menopause and for filling a prescription for hormone replacement therapy. We calculated adjusted hazards ratios for these outcomes and adjusted for other gynecologic conditions, surgical approach, and patient age. We performed an age-stratified analysis (<40, 40-44, 45-49 years) and conducted a sensitivity analysis that included only women with ≥5 years of follow up.
We included 41,413 women in the study. There were 6861 women who underwent hysterectomy alone, 6500 who underwent hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy, 4479 who underwent hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, 18,621 who underwent tubal ligation, and 4952 who underwent opportunistic salpingectomy for sterilization. In women who underwent opportunistic salpingectomy, there was no difference in time to the first physician visit related to menopause for both women who underwent hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.09) and women who underwent opportunistic salpingectomy for sterilization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.10). There was also no difference in time to filling a prescription for hormone replacement therapy for women who underwent hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy or opportunistic salpingectomy for sterilization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.92; and adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.12; respectively). In contrast, we report significantly increase hazards for time to physician visit for menopause (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.78, 2.13) and filling a prescription for hormone replacement therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 3.45, 4.18) among women who underwent hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. There were no increased hazards for physician visits for menopause or initiation of hormone replacement therapy among women who underwent opportunistic salpingectomy in any of the age-stratified analyses, nor among women with at least 5 years of follow up.
Our results reveal no indication of an earlier age of onset of menopause among the population of women who underwent hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy and opportunistic salpingectomy for sterilization as measured by physician visits for menopause and initiation of hormone replacement therapy. Our findings are reassuring, given that earlier age at menopause is associated with increased mortality rates, particularly from cardiovascular disease.
输卵管通常可能是最常见和致命的卵巢癌(高级别浆液性卵巢癌)的起源部位。因此,许多妇产科医学院,包括美国妇产科医师学会,建议在一般人群中有卵巢癌风险的女性(统称为机会性输卵管切除术)进行其他妇科手术(尤其是子宫切除术和输卵管绝育术)时,同时切除输卵管(双侧输卵管切除术)。先前的研究表明,机会性输卵管切除术后并发症的风险没有增加。然而,大多数研究机会性输卵管切除术后潜在激素后果的研究随访时间有限,并且侧重于替代激素标志物。
我们检查在不列颠哥伦比亚省的人群中,接受机会性输卵管切除术的女性中,是否在更年期就诊和开激素替代疗法的处方方面存在差异。
我们确定了 2008 年至 2014 年间不列颠哥伦比亚省所有年龄在 50 岁以下的接受机会性输卵管切除术的女性。我们将接受机会性输卵管切除术的女性与接受子宫切除术的女性和接受子宫切除术的女性进行比较,并与接受输卵管结扎术的女性进行比较。我们使用 Cox 比例风险模型来模拟更年期就诊和激素替代疗法处方的时间。我们为这些结果计算了调整后的危险比,并调整了其他妇科疾病、手术方法和患者年龄。我们进行了年龄分层分析(<40 岁、40-44 岁、45-49 岁),并进行了敏感性分析,仅包括随访时间≥ 5 年的女性。
我们纳入了 41413 名女性。6861 名女性单独接受了子宫切除术,6500 名女性接受了子宫切除术加机会性输卵管切除术,4479 名女性接受了子宫切除术加双侧输卵管卵巢切除术,18621 名女性接受了输卵管结扎术,4952 名女性接受了输卵管切除术进行绝育。在接受机会性输卵管切除术的女性中,接受子宫切除术加机会性输卵管切除术的女性(调整后的危险比,0.98;95%置信区间,0.88-1.09)和接受机会性输卵管切除术进行绝育的女性(调整后的危险比,0.92;95%置信区间,0.77-1.10)首次更年期就诊的时间没有差异。接受子宫切除术加机会性输卵管切除术或接受机会性输卵管切除术进行绝育的女性开激素替代疗法处方的时间也没有差异(调整后的危险比,0.82;95%置信区间,0.72-0.92;和调整后的危险比,1.00;95%置信区间,0.89-1.12;分别)。相比之下,我们报告在接受双侧输卵管卵巢切除术的女性中,更年期就诊(调整后的危险比,1.95;95%置信区间,1.78,2.13)和激素替代疗法处方(调整后的危险比,3.80;95%置信区间,3.45,4.18)的时间显著增加。在任何年龄分层分析中,以及在至少有 5 年随访的女性中,接受子宫切除术加机会性输卵管切除术或机会性输卵管切除术绝育的女性,更年期就诊或开始激素替代疗法的风险均未增加。
我们的研究结果表明,在接受子宫切除术加机会性输卵管切除术和机会性输卵管切除术绝育的女性中,与更年期就诊和开始激素替代疗法相关的更年期起始年龄没有提前。考虑到绝经年龄提前与死亡率增加,尤其是心血管疾病死亡率增加有关,我们的研究结果令人欣慰。