IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0152343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the Fertility Outcome of Salpingotomy and Salpingectomy in Women with Tubal Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaolin Cheng
  • Xiaoyu Tian
  • Zhen Yan
  • Mengmeng Jia
  • Jie Deng
  • Ying Wang
  • Dongmei Fan

Abstract

Objective: To compare the natural fertility outcomes of salpingotomy and salpingectomy among women treated for tubal pregnancy. Methods: An online database search including PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science was performed to identify studies comparing salpingotomy and salpingectomy to treat women with tubal pregnancy. The search included papers published after the databases were established until May 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of all of the included studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. The registration number is CRD42015017545 in PROSPERO. Results: Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight cohort studies, including a total of 1,229 patients, were znalyzed. The meta-analysis of the RCT subgroup indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in IUP rates (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.89–1.21, P = 0.61) nor the repeat ectopic pregnancy (REP) rate (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.72–2.38, P = 0.39) between the salpingotomy and salpingectomy group. In contrast, the cohort study subgroup analysis revealed that the IUP rate was higher in the salpingotomy group compared with the salpingectomy group (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.08–1.42, P = 0.002); Salpingotomy also increased the risk of REP rate (RR = 2.27, 95% CI = 1.12–4.58, P = 0.02). The persistent ectopic pregnancy (PEP) occurred more frequently in the salpingotomy group than the salpingectomy group (RR = 11.61, 95% CI = 3.17–42.46, P = 0.0002). An IUP would be more likely to occur after salpingotomy than salpingectomy when the follow-up time was more than 36 months (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.02–1.32, P = 0.03). The IUP rate (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.01–1.26, P = 0.03), and the REP rate (RR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.02–2.56, P = 0.04) was higher after salpingotomy than salpingectomy among patients from Europe compared with those from America. Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, we believe that for patients with a healthy contralateral tube operated for tubal pregnancy, the subsequent fertility after salpingectomy and salpingotomy are similar in the long term. The fertility prospects will not be improved via salpingotomy compared with salpingectomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaolin Cheng & Xiaoyu Tian & Zhen Yan & Mengmeng Jia & Jie Deng & Ying Wang & Dongmei Fan, 2016. "Comparison of the Fertility Outcome of Salpingotomy and Salpingectomy in Women with Tubal Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152343
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152343
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152343&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0152343?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.