OBJECTIVES: To examine trends in rates of elective bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in the United States and to assess the association of perioperative complications with elective bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study uses 1998–2006 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, a nationally representative sample of inpatient hospitalizations. Analyses were limited to women aged 15 years or older at average risk for ovarian cancer who underwent hysterectomy for a benign gynecologic condition. Tests for trends in elective bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rates were performed using weighted least squares regression for two time periods, 1998 to 2001 and 2002 to 2006. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for risks of complications associated with elective bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were estimated using logistic regression.
RESULTS: During the period from 1998 to 2006, 39% of the 2,250,041 women who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecologic indications had elective bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (rate, 8.3 per 10,000). The elective bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rate increased from 7.8 per 10,000 in 1998 to 9.0 per 10,000 in 2001 (P trend <.05) and decreased from 9.0 per 10,000 in 2002 to 7.4 per 10,000 in 2006 (P trend <.05). The largest decline from 2002 to 2006 (20.3%) occurred among those aged 45 to 49 years. Compared with hysterectomy only, elective bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with an increased risk of complications when performed vaginally (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.08–1.17) and a decreased risk of complications when performed abdominally (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.89–0.94) or laparoscopically (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83–0.94).
CONCLUSION: Elective bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rates declined since 2002. However, the risks compared with the benefits of the procedure have not been clearly established. Prospective studies examining elective bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with and without estrogen therapy are needed to guide practice patterns.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III