Document Detail

Salpingotomy or salpingectomy in tubal ectopic pregnancy: what do women prefer?
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20884296     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Process    
There is an ongoing debate whether tubal ectopic pregnancy should be treated by salpingotomy or salpingectomy. It is unknown which treatment women prefer in view of the potentially better fertility outcome but disadvantages of salpingotomy. This study investigated women surgically treated for tubal ectopic pregnancy and subfertile women desiring pregnancy and their preferences for salpingotomy relative to salpingectomy by means of a web-based discrete choice experiment consisting of 16 choice sets. Scenarios representing salpingotomy differed in three attributes: intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) chance, risk of persistent trophoblast and risk of repeat ectopic pregnancy. An 'opt out' alternative, representing salpingectomy, was similar for every choice set. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to analyse relative importance of the attributes. This study showed that the negative effect of repeat ectopic pregnancy was 1.6 times stronger on the preference of women compared with the positive effect of the spontaneous IUP rate. For all women, the risk of persistent trophoblast was acceptable if compensated by a small rise in the spontaneous IUP rate. The conclusion was that women preferred avoiding a repeat ectopic pregnancy to a higher probability of a spontaneous IUP in the surgical treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg gets stuck inside the Fallopian tube where it starts growing instead of passing on to the uterus. This may lead to serious problems, such as internal bleeding and pain. Therefore, in the majority of women, it is necessary to remove the ectopic pregnancy by means of an operation. Two types of surgery are being used in removing the ectopic pregnancy. A conservative approach, salpingotomy, preserves the tube but bears the risk of incomplete removal of the pregnancy tissue (persistent trophoblast), which then needs additional treatment, and of a repeat ectopic pregnancy in the same tube in the future. A radical approach, salpingectomy, bears no risk of persistent trophoblast and limits the risk of repeat tubal pregnancy, but leaves only one tube for reproductive capacity. It is unknown which type of operation is better, especially for future fertility. We investigated women's preferences between these two treatments for ectopic pregnancy, i.e. does a better fertility prognosis outweigh the potential disadvantages of persistent trophoblast and an increased risk for ectopic pregnancy in the future? The study results show in the surgical treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy that women preferred avoiding a repeat ectopic pregnancy to gaining a higher chance of a spontaneous intrauterine pregnancy. The risk of additional treatment in the case of persistent trophoblast after salpingotomy was acceptable if compensated by a small rise in intrauterine pregnancy rate.
N M van Mello; F Mol; B C Opmeer; E W de Bekker-Grob; M L Essink-Bot; W M Ankum; B W Mol; F van der Veen; P J Hajenius
Related Documents :
12764626 - Laparoscopic management of cornual pregnancy without sutures.
12601516 - The natural history of pelvic organ support in pregnancy.
24471846 - High-resolution microarray in the assessment of fetal anomalies detected by ultrasound.
7844236 - Heterotopic pregnancy obtained after in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer followi...
23246096 - Review: preeclampsia, acute atherosis of the spiral arteries and future cardiovascular ...
16252576 - Adverse effects of teenage pregnancy.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2010-06-30
Journal Detail:
Title:  Reproductive biomedicine online     Volume:  21     ISSN:  1472-6491     ISO Abbreviation:  Reprod. Biomed. Online     Publication Date:  2010 Nov 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-11-01     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101122473     Medline TA:  Reprod Biomed Online     Country:  Netherlands    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  687-93     Citation Subset:  IM    
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2010 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Development of humanized culture medium with plant-derived serum replacement for human pluripotent s...
Next Document:  Hepatitis B immune memory in children primed with hexavalent vaccines and given monovalent booster v...