Survey: acceptability of opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy in Flanders.
Journal
Facts, views & vision in ObGyn
ISSN: 2032-0418
Titre abrégé: Facts Views Vis Obgyn
Pays: Belgium
ID NLM: 101578773
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
entrez:
23
9
2021
pubmed:
24
9
2021
medline:
24
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The VVOG (Flemish Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology) published a consensus statement promoting opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (OBS). The aim of the study was to obtain insight into the current opinion and general practice of Flemish gynaecologists to counsel and perform OBS. A questionnaire was distributed to Flemish gynaecologists three months following publication. The drawbacks and incentives to counsel and perform OBS were questioned. Complete response rate was obtained from 99 gynaecologists (17%) and 37 trainees (19%). The majority of respondents (77%) always counselled for OBS in patients scheduled for hysterectomy without oophorectomy. Eighteen per cent counselled only above a certain age cut off and/or if patient was already menopausal. The most important incentive to counsel in cases of hysterectomy by the abdominal approach and vaginal hysterectomy (VH) was the opportunity to prevent ovarian cancer. The yet-undetermined risk of premature ovarian failure was mentioned as the most important barrier in counselling women for OBS in those undergoing hysterectomy by the abdominal approach. For VH, the respondents saw the risk of complications and increased surgical time as the most important barriers. Sixty-one percent of gynaecologists preferred to perform bilateral salpingectomy as sterilisation method. Our study suggests that the concept of OBS is already well known in Flanders. There is a positive attitude towards the routine implementation of OBS, although some barriers and doubts about an age cut-off still exist in practice.
Sections du résumé
Background
The VVOG (Flemish Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology) published a consensus statement promoting opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (OBS).
Objectives
The aim of the study was to obtain insight into the current opinion and general practice of Flemish gynaecologists to counsel and perform OBS.
Materials and Methods
A questionnaire was distributed to Flemish gynaecologists three months following publication.
Main outcome measures
The drawbacks and incentives to counsel and perform OBS were questioned.
Results
Complete response rate was obtained from 99 gynaecologists (17%) and 37 trainees (19%). The majority of respondents (77%) always counselled for OBS in patients scheduled for hysterectomy without oophorectomy. Eighteen per cent counselled only above a certain age cut off and/or if patient was already menopausal. The most important incentive to counsel in cases of hysterectomy by the abdominal approach and vaginal hysterectomy (VH) was the opportunity to prevent ovarian cancer. The yet-undetermined risk of premature ovarian failure was mentioned as the most important barrier in counselling women for OBS in those undergoing hysterectomy by the abdominal approach. For VH, the respondents saw the risk of complications and increased surgical time as the most important barriers. Sixty-one percent of gynaecologists preferred to perform bilateral salpingectomy as sterilisation method.
Conclusions
Our study suggests that the concept of OBS is already well known in Flanders. There is a positive attitude towards the routine implementation of OBS, although some barriers and doubts about an age cut-off still exist in practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34555878
doi: 10.52054/FVVO.13.3.029
pmc: PMC8823277
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
241-249Références
J Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jan;30(1):e2
pubmed: 30479086
BJOG. 2017 May;124(6):880-889
pubmed: 28190289
Trials. 2019 Jan 5;20(1):10
pubmed: 30611296
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;217(5):603.e1-603.e6
pubmed: 28619689
Maturitas. 2010 Feb;65(2):161-6
pubmed: 19733988
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;220(1):85.e1-85.e10
pubmed: 30321526
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Aug 28;8:CD012858
pubmed: 31456223
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 20;34(24):2888-98
pubmed: 27325851
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Sep;170(1):251-4
pubmed: 23880597
Int Urogynecol J. 2018 May;29(5):715-721
pubmed: 28707208
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Mar;135(3):550-557
pubmed: 32080033
Maturitas. 2018 Jan;107:1-6
pubmed: 29169572
Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Winter;1(1):23-32
pubmed: 18701927
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018 Dec 14;2(4):pky061
pubmed: 31360879
Eur J Cancer. 2021 Mar;145:38-43
pubmed: 33418235
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;223(2):221.e1-221.e11
pubmed: 32067967
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Jan;26(1):31-3
pubmed: 26658362
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 May;127(5):819-827
pubmed: 27054925
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021 May;50(5):102005
pubmed: 33242679
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013 Jul;35(7):627-634
pubmed: 23876640
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2019 Jun;11(2):177-187
pubmed: 31824638
BMJ Open. 2013 Jun 20;3(6):
pubmed: 23794553
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Nov;286(5):1221-5
pubmed: 22766755
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Aug;128(2):277-283
pubmed: 27399999
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 12;6(8):e011546
pubmed: 27519922
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 May;194(5):1273-6
pubmed: 16579950
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;217(5):605.e1-605.e5
pubmed: 28734829
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Jan 27;107(2):
pubmed: 25628372