Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery

Opportunistic Salpingectomy at the Time of Urogynecologic Surgery: Why, in Whom, and How?

Objectives This review aims to (1) describe evidence supporting the fallopian tube as a site of high-grade serous carcinoma, (2) review literature regarding salpingectomy in high- and average-risk women, and (3) discuss feasibility and safety of salpingectomy in urogynecologic surgery. Methods PubMed and university library resources were used to retrieve relevant English-language publications via keyword search, including “ovarian cancer,” “salpingectomy,” “risk,” “safety,” “hysterectomy,” “trends,” “technique,” and “urogynecology.” Each publication was reviewed in detail and references incorporated, where relevant. Results Evidence supports the fimbriated portion of the fallopian tube as a site of high-grade serous carcinoma in both hereditary and sporadic cases. Routine opportunistic salpingectomy in average-risk women may reduce ovarian cancer risk by 42% to 65% and prevent future surgery for benign tubal disease. Opportunistic salpingectomy is cost-effective for sterilization and cost-saving during hysterectomy. For genetically predisposed women, salpingo-oophorectomy remains the recommended strategy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. Despite being feasible, safe, and cost-effective, concomitant salpingectomy is least commonly performed during vaginal hysterectomy compared with other hysterectomy routes. Salpingectomy rates during vaginal hysterectomy are influenced by geographic factors, surgeon experience, and adhesive disease. Conclusions Opportunistic salpingectomy holds promise as a risk-reducing intervention for ovarian cancer. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommend that physicians counsel average-risk women regarding opportunistic salpingectomy when planning pelvic surgery. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate long-term implications of salpingectomy. Urogynecologic surgeons should discuss salpingectomy as part of surgical informed consent. Vaginal salpingectomy should be incorporated into residency and fellowship training programs.

Unanticipated Uterine and Cervical Malignancy in Women Undergoing Hysterectomy for Uterovaginal Prolapse

Objective This study aimed to determine the prevalence of unanticipated uterine cancer and cervical cancer in women undergoing hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse. Methods Using data from the 2015–2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, we identified adult women who underwent a hysterectomy with a concurrent procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. Patients who underwent a radical hysterectomy or had other procedures or diagnoses suggestive of preoperatively suspected or known gynecologic cancer were excluded. Our outcome measures were pathology-confirmed diagnoses of uterine cancer and cervical cancer. Bivariate statistical tests and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify patient characteristics associated with the likelihood of having unanticipated uterine cancer. Results Among 9,687 patients meeting the sample eligibility criteria (median age, 60 years), 51 (0.53%; 95% confidence interval, 0.39%–0.69%) had a diagnosis of uterine cancer. Forty-three (84.3%) were stage I-IB. Multivariable logistic regression showed that older age (adjusted odds ratio, 2.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.47–5.51, for age >60 vs 41–60 years) and uterine weight greater than 250 g (adjusted odds ratio, 4.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.48–10.79) were associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having unexpected uterine malignancy. In addition, in a subsample of 7,908 patients who underwent a total hysterectomy, 7 (0.09%; 95% confidence interval, 0.04%–0.18%) had a diagnosis of cervical cancer. Conclusions The risk of unexpected uterine cancer and cervical cancer in women undergoing hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse was relatively low but should be appropriately considered when counseling patients desiring uterine- or cervix-sparing procedures.

Imaging Studies in a Primary Vaginal Melanoma Disguised as a Suburethral Cyst: A Case Report

The Risk of Primary Uterine and Cervical Cancer After Hysteropexy

Objective The aim of the study was to determine the rate of subsequent uterine/cervical cancer after hysteropexy compared with hysterectomy with apical prolapse repair. Methods The study used a retrospective cohort of women with uterovaginal prolapse using the Cerner Health Facts database between 2010 and 2018. We identified sacrospinous or uterosacral ligament suspensions or sacral colpopexy/hysteropexy and excluded those with previous hysterectomy. We used the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for endometrial cancer/hyperplasia and cervical cancer and then reviewed each case, excluding those whose cancer existed at time of prolapse repair. Given that 0 cancer cases were identified, we used Wilson, Jeffreys, Agresti-Coull, Clopper-Pearson, and Rule of 3 to define 95% confidence intervals to estimate the highest possible rate of cancer in each cohort. Results A total of 8,927 patients underwent apical prolapse surgery. Of 4,510 with uterovaginal prolapse, 755 (16.7%) underwent hysteropexy. Seventy one with hysterectomy and 5 with hysteropexy had codes for subsequent gynecologic cancer but were excluded on further review. This left 0 gynecologic cancer cases with the largest 95% confidence interval of 0%–0.61% for hysteropexy versus 0%–0.13% for hysterectomy (P > 0.05). The hysteropexy cohort was older (62.6 years vs 57.3 years, P < 0.0001), more likely to have public insurance (51.0% vs 37.9%, P < 0.0001), and less likely to smoke (4.5% vs 7.6%, P = 0.0026). Median follow-up was longer after hysteropexy (1,480 days vs 1,164 days, P < 0.0009). Conclusions We can say with 95% certainty that uterine or cervical cancer will develop after hysteropexy in fewer than 0.61% of women, which was not different if hysterectomy was performed. This should be included in preoperative counseling for hysteropexy. Studying longer follow-up after hysteropexy may capture more cases of subsequent cancer development.

Hysterectomy Versus Hysteropexy at the Time of Native Tissue Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective The aim of the study was to determine whether a hysterectomy at the time of native tissue pelvic organ prolapse repair is cost-effective for the prevention of endometrial cancer. Methods We created a decision analysis model using TreeAge Pro. We modeled prolapse recurrence after total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (TVH-USLS) versus sacrospinous ligament fixation hysteropexy (SSLF-HPXY). We modeled incidence and diagnostic evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding, including risk of endometrial pathology and diagnosis or death from endometrial cancer. Modeled costs included those associated with the index procedure, subsequent prolapse repair, endometrial biopsy, pelvic ultrasound, hysteroscopy, dilation and curettage, and treatment of endometrial cancer. Results TVH-USLS costs US $587.61 more than SSLF-HPXY per case of prolapse. TVH-USLS prevents 1.1% of women from experiencing postmenopausal bleeding and its diagnostic workup. It prevents 0.95% of women from undergoing subsequent major surgery for the treatment of either prolapse recurrence or suspected endometrial cancer. Using our model, it costs US $2,698,677 to prevent one cancer death by performing TVH-USLS. As this is lower than the value of a statistical life, it is cost-effective to perform TVH-USLS for cancer prevention. Multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses showed that changes to input variables would not significantly change outcomes. Conclusions TVH-USLS increased costs but reduced postmenopausal bleeding and subsequent major surgery compared with SSLF-HPXY. Accounting for these differences, TVH-USLS was a cost-effective approach for the prevention of endometrial cancer. Uterine preservation/removal at the time of prolapse repair should be based on the woman’s history and treatment priorities, but cancer prevention should be one aspect of this decision.