Southern medical journal · 2018
Risk-Reducing Salpingectomy Versus Standard Tubal Sterilization: Lessons From Offering Women Options for Interval Sterilization.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zerden Matthew L, Castellano Tara, Doll Kemi M, Stuart Gretchen S, Munoz M Cris, Boggess Kim A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: In women receiving sterilization, the removal of the entire fallopian tube, a procedure referred to as a risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS), reduces subsequent ovarian cancer risk compared with standard tubal sterilization procedures. There are limited data on which surgical procedure women will choose when educated about the benefits of an RRS. Our objective was to study the proportion of women desiring sterilization that would choose an RRS.
METHODS: This cohort study included women 30 years of age and older with a living biological child who requested laparoscopic sterilization at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants were given a decision aid and offered an RRS or a standard tubal sterilization procedure with titanium clips. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of women who would choose an RRS. Other outcomes included estimated blood loss and operative time, which was compared between groups, along with complications.
RESULTS: Fourteen of the 18 (78%) women who participated in our study chose RRS. Estimated blood loss and operating time were similar among women who underwent RRS and standard tubal sterilizations. There were no significant complications in either group. The study was ended early based on emerging data and a change in national practice patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the elective nature of sterilization and the complexities of cancer risk reduction, a patient-centered approach is beneficial for sterilization counseling. Our results support offering RRS as an alternative to standard tubal sterilization.
METHODS: This cohort study included women 30 years of age and older with a living biological child who requested laparoscopic sterilization at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants were given a decision aid and offered an RRS or a standard tubal sterilization procedure with titanium clips. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of women who would choose an RRS. Other outcomes included estimated blood loss and operative time, which was compared between groups, along with complications.
RESULTS: Fourteen of the 18 (78%) women who participated in our study chose RRS. Estimated blood loss and operating time were similar among women who underwent RRS and standard tubal sterilizations. There were no significant complications in either group. The study was ended early based on emerging data and a change in national practice patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the elective nature of sterilization and the complexities of cancer risk reduction, a patient-centered approach is beneficial for sterilization counseling. Our results support offering RRS as an alternative to standard tubal sterilization.