Feasibility, Safety, and Provider Perspectives of Bipolar Electrosurgical Cautery Device for (Opportunistic or Complete) Salpingectomy at the Time of Cesarean Delivery

Abstract

Objective The aim of the study is to evaluate the use of a bipolar electrocautery device for complete salpingectomy at cesarean to improve procedure completion rates, operative time, and surgeon reported satisfaction as compared with standard bilateral tubal ligation (BTL) and suture-cut-tie salpingectomy.

Study Design This is a prospective cohort study of women undergoing planned, non-emergent cesarean with desired sterilization with complete salpingectomy utilizing a bipolar electrocautery device. Study patients were compared with historic controls from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of complete salpingectomy via suture-cut-tie method versus BTL conducted at our institution (SCORE trial, NCT02374827). Outcomes were compared with groups from the original RCT.

Results Thirty-nine women were consecutively enrolled (12/2018–11/2019) into the device arm of the study and compared with the original SCORE cohort (n = 40 BTL, n = 40 salpingectomy without a device). Salpingectomy performance with the bipolar electrocautery device was successfully completed in 100% (39/39) of enrolled women, with one device failure requiring the use of a second device, as compared with 95% (38/40) in the BTL (p = 0.49) and 67.5% (27/40) in salpingectomies without a device (p < 0.001). Mean operative time of sterilization procedure alone demonstrated device use as having the shortest operative time of all (device salpingectomy 5.0 ± 3.6 vs. no device 18.5 ± 8.3 minutes, p < 0.001; and vs. BTL 6.9 ± 5.0, p = 0.032). Mean sterilization procedure endoscopic band ligation (EBL) was demonstrated to be significantly different between each group, least amongst BTL followed by device (6.3 ± 4.8 vs. 8.4 ± 24.8, p < 0.001), and most by suture-cut-tie method (17.7 ± 14.3, p < 0.001 compared with device). Surgeon reported attitudes of complete salpingectomy performance in general practice outside an academic setting was greater with a device than without (79.5 vs. 35.3%; p < 0.001).

Conclusion Use of a bipolar electrocautery device improved operative times and surgeon satisfaction for salpingectomy at cesarean over standard suture ligation. Device use improved surgeon reported outcomes and may improve incorporation of complete salpingectomy at cesarean.

Key Points

• Electrocautery bipolar device use was safe at the time of salpingectomy during cesarean.

• Greater surgeon satisfaction occurs using a device than without.

• Decreased surgical time with device use is seen making the procedure equal to BTL.

Keywords

cesarean delivery - electrocautery - opportunistic salpingectomy - sterilization

• References

• 1 Ovarian Cancer Statistics | How Common is Ovarian Cancer.. Accessed November 30, 2019 at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
• 2 Lowe KA, Chia VM, Taylor A. et al. An international assessment of ovarian cancer incidence and mortality. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 130 (01) 107-114
• 3 Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A. et al. Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol 2007; 31 (02) 161-169
• 4 Erickson BK, Conner MG, Landen Jr CN. The role of the fallopian tube in the origin of ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (05) 409-414
• 5 Kurman RJ, Shih IeM. The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34 (03) 433-443
• 6 Prevention OC. Committee opinion no. 620: salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125 (01) 279-281
• 7 Walker JL, Powell CB, Chen LM. et al. Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for the prevention of ovarian cancer. Cancer 2015; 121 (13) 2108-2120
• 8 Dilley SE, Straughn Jr JM, Leath III CA. The evolution of and evidence for opportunistic salpingectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (04) 814-824
• 9 Minig L, Chuang L, Patrono MG, Cárdenas-Rebollo JM, García-Donas J. Surgical outcomes and complications of prophylactic salpingectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in premenopausal women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22 (04) 653-657
• 10 Vorwergk J, Radosa MP, Nicolaus K. et al. Prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy (PBS) to reduce ovarian cancer risk incorporated in standard premenopausal hysterectomy: complications and re-operation rate. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2014; 140 (05) 859-865
• 11 Hanley GE, McAlpine JN, Pearce CL, Miller D. The performance and safety of bilateral salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216 (03) 270.e1-270.e9
• 12 Dilley SE, Havrilesky LJ, Bakkum-Gamez J. et al. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 146 (02) 373-379
• 13 Kwon JS, McAlpine JN, Hanley GE. et al. Costs and benefits of opportunistic salpingectomy as an ovarian cancer prevention strategy. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125 (02) 338-34
• 14 Chan LM, Westhoff CL. Tubal sterilization trends in the United States. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (01) 1-6
• 15 Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK, Curtain SC. Births: preliminary data for 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015; 64 (06) 1-19
• 16 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 (04) 472.e1-472.e6
• 17 Danis RB, Della Badia CR, Richard SD. Postpartum permanent sterilization: could bilateral salpingectomy replace bilateral tubal ligation?. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (06) 928-932
• 18 Shinar S, Blecher Y, Alpern S. et al. Total bilateral salpingectomy versus partial bilateral salpingectomy for permanent sterilization during cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 295 (05) 1185-1189
• 19 Lawrie TA, Nardin JM, Kulier R, Boulvain M. Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (02) CD003034
• 20 Subramaniam A, Einerson BD, Blanchard CT. et al. The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy versus standard tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery for ovarian cancer risk reduction. Gynecol Oncol 2019; 152 (01) 127-132
• 21 Subramaniam A, Blanchard CT, Erickson BK. et al. Feasibility of complete salpingectomy compared with standard postpartum tubal ligation at cesarean delivery a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018; Jul; 132 (01) 20-27
• 22 Venkatesh KK, Clark LH, Stamilio DM. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy vs. tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (01) 106.e1-106.e10
• 23 Garcia C, Moskowitz OM, Chisholm CA. et al. Salpingectomy compared with tubal ligation at cesarean delivery a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132 (01) 29-34
• 24 Mohamed AA, Yosef AH, James C, Al-Hussaini TK, Bedaiwy MA, Amer SAKS. Ovarian reserve after salpingectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017; 96 (07) 795-803
• 25 Kotlyar A, Gingold J, Shue S, Falcone T. The effect of salpingectomy on ovarian function. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24 (04) 563-578
• 26 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 2021; 34 (22) 3794-3802
• 27 Castellano T, Zerden M, Marsh L, Boggess K. Risks and benefits of salpingectomy at the time of sterilization. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2017; 72 (11) 663-668
• 28 Guo XM, Hall EF, Mazzullo L, Djordjevic M. A low-cost approach to salpingectomy at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222 (05) 503.e1-503.e3