Trial reportObstetrics and gynecology2018
Feasibility of Complete Salpingectomy Compared With Standard Postpartum Tubal Ligation at Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02374827 (Complete Salpingectomy Versus Standard Postpartum Tubal Ligation at the Time of Cesarean Delivery- a Randomized Controlled Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Complete Salpingectomy Versus Standard Postpartum Tubal Ligation at the Time of Cesarean Delivery- a Randomized Controlled Study
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of salpingectomy versus tubal ligation on postoperative wound infection in patients: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Physician variation in adopting opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of postpartum and interval sterilization for ovarian cancer risk reduction.Gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- Salpingectomy versus tubal occlusion in laparoscopic sterilisation (SALSTER): a national register-based randomised non-inferiority trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Unveiling the Promise: A Comprehensive Review of Salpingectomy as a Vanguard for Ovarian Cancer Prevention.Cureus · 2024Review
- SALpingectomy for STERilisation (SALSTER): study protocol for a Swedish multicentre register-based randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Prevention of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2023Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Reducing Surgery for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Prevention: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Article
- Biomaterials and Contraception: Promises and Pitfalls.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2020Review
- Patients' perceptions toward and the driving factors of decision-making for opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy at the time of cesarean section.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Article
- Relationship between the precursors of high grade serous ovarian cancer and patient characteristics: decreased incidence of the p53 signature in pregnant women.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2019Article
- Surgically Induced Menopause-A Practical Review of Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Review
- The rationale of opportunistic bilateral salpingectomies (OBS) during benign gynaecological and obstetric surgery: a consensus text of the Flemish Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (VVOG).Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2019Article
- The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy versus standard tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery for ovarian cancer risk reduction.Gynecologic oncology · 2019Article
- Bilateral salpingectomy to reduce the risk of ovarian/fallopian/peritoneal cancer in women at average risk: a position statement of the Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (KSOG).Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2018Review
- Bilateral salpingectomy versus bilateral partial salpingectomy during cesarean delivery.International journal of women's health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of salpingectomy compared with standard bilateral tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery in women with undesired fertility.
methodsWe included women at 35 weeks of gestation or greater desiring permanent sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery. Patients were randomized after skin incision to bilateral salpingectomy or bilateral tubal ligation by a computer-generated scheme. If salpingectomy could not be completed on one or both sides, bilateral tubal ligation was attempted. Primary feasibility outcomes were total operative time and bilateral completion of the randomized procedure. Secondary outcomes included clinically estimated blood loss and surgical complications up to 6 weeks postpartum. We estimated that 80 patients (40 per group) would provide greater than 80% power to identify a 10-minute difference in the primary outcome (time) with a SD of 15 minutes and a two-sided α of 0.05. Analysis was by intent to treat.
resultsOf 221 women screened from June 2015 to April 2017, 115 (52%) consented to the study; 80 were randomized-40 to salpingectomy and 40 to bilateral tubal ligation. Groups were similar at baseline. A total of 27 bilateral salpingectomies were successfully completed compared with 38 bilateral tubal ligations (68% compared with 95%, P=.002). Total operative time was on average 15 minutes longer for salpingectomies (75.4±29.1 compared with 60.0±23.3 minutes, P=.004). No adverse outcomes directly related to the sterilization procedure were noted in either group. Although estimated blood loss of only the sterilization procedure (surgeon estimate) was greater for the salpingectomy group (median 10 [interquartile range 5-25] compared with 5 [interquartile range 5-10] cc, P<.001), total estimated blood loss and safety outcomes were similar for both groups.
conclusionAdding 15 minutes to total operative times, salpingectomy can be successfully completed in approximately two thirds of women desiring permanent contraception with cesarean delivery. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT02374827.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.