IMR Press / CEOG / Volume 44 / Issue 6 / DOI: 10.12891/ceog3696.2017

Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology (CEOG) is published by IMR Press from Volume 46 Issue 1 (2019). Previous articles were published by another publisher on a subscription basis, and they are hosted by IMR Press on as a courtesy and upon agreement with S.O.G.

Open Access Original Research
Salpingectomy for tubal sterilization at cesarean section: no extra time and no extra bleeding compared with tubal ligation
Show Less
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokyo Metropolitan Tama Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan
Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 44(6), 879–881;
Published: 10 December 2017

Purpose: A salpingectomy may reduce the probability of the future occurrence of ovarian cancer, and is now increasingly preferred to the tubal ligation as a method of tubal sterilization. This study aimed to determine whether a salpingectomy at cesarean section (CS) requires more time or involves more bleeding compared with tubal ligation. Materials and Methods: This was a historically controlled retrospective observational study. The clinical records of singleton pregnant women who underwent tubal sterilization at CS were examined. Tubal ligation was performed in 45 women in 2013-2014 and a salpingectomy was performed in 22 women in 2015. Results: No significant difference was observed between tubal ligation and salpingectomy groups in terms of median operating time (65.0 and 68.5 minutes for the ligation and the salpingectomy groups, respectively; p = 0.053) or volume of bleeding (847 and 916 ml for the ligation and the salpingectomy groups, respectively; p = 0.475). Conclusion: A bilateral salpingectomy at CS did not involve more time or bleeding than tubal ligation, and may therefore be an option for tubal sterilization during CS.
Cesarean section
Ovarian cancer
Tubal ligation
Tubal sterilization
Back to top