ArticleCureus2024
The Effect of Salpingectomy on Ovarian Reserve Using Two Different Electrosurgical Instruments: Ultrasonic Shears Versus Bipolar Electrocautery.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Impact of Bilateral Salpingectomy on Ovarian Reserve: A Prospective Analysis of Hormonal, Ultrasound and Clinical Correlations.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Salpingectomy is a common surgical procedure in gynecology performed for various indications. Given its proximity to the ovaries and shared vascular supply, concerns have arisen regarding compromised ovarian reserve post-salpingectomy. Objective We aim to study the effect of two different energy sources (group 1: salpingectomy using bipolar electrocautery followed by division with scissors versus group 2: salpingectomy with ultrasonic shears) on residual ovarian reserve. The effect on ovarian reserve was assessed using serum levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC), and ovarian size pre- and postoperatively. Materials and methods According to the inclusion criteria, 68 women were included in the study and randomized into the bipolar electrocautery group and the ultrasonic shear group. The final analysis included 34 women in the bipolar electrocautery group and 32 in the ultrasonic shear group. Preoperatively, the ovarian reserve of all women was assessed using FSH, AMH, AFC, and ovarian size. These parameters were then reassessed at three months postoperatively, and the percentage change was analyzed. Results The mean baseline serum AMH and serum FSH values in the bipolar electrocautery group were 3.9 ± 2.9 ng/ml and 6.6 ± 2.1 IU/L, respectively, comparable with the values in the ultrasonic shear group, where serum AMH was 3.2 ± 2.9 ng/ml and serum FSH was 7.3 ± 3.9 IU/L. AFC and ovarian size were comparable between the two groups preoperatively (bipolar electrocautery group AFC was 8 ± 2.2, ovarian size on the right side was 3.3 ± 0.7 cm and on the left was 3.2 ± 0.6 cm; ultrasonic shear group AFC was 5.7 ± 2.3, ovarian size on the right side was 3.4 ± 0.8 cm and on the left was 3.2 ± 0.8 cm). After three months of postoperative analysis, AFC showed a significant fall from the preoperative value in the bipolar electrocautery group compared to the ultrasonic shear group (AFC reduced from 8 ± 2.2 to 5.5 ± 2.3 vs. 8.6 ± 0.5 to 7.9 ± 2.3; p=0.002). The other parameters showed no statistically significant change. Conclusion Our study suggests that ultrasonic shear is safer than bipolar electrocautery for preserving ovarian reserve after salpingectomy. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings.
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.