A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Surgical Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy with Salpingectomy versus Salpingostomy

ObjectiveTo evaluate the fertility outcomes of salpingectomy compared with those of salpingostomy among patients treated for tubal ectopic pregnancies, including a separate analysis of women with risk factors along with a review of the surgical technique.Data SourcesSystematic review and meta-analysis from 1990 to the present through PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Ovid MEDLINE. The search string included “tubal pregnancy” or “ectopic” as well as “salpingectomy” and various terms describing salpingotomy.Methods of Study SelectionArticles studying women who underwent surgical management of an ectopic pregnancy and the contrasted outcomes of salpingectomy vs salpingostomy were reviewed. The primary outcomes included subsequent intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) and repeat ectopic pregnancy (REP).Tabulation, Integration, and ResultsTwo randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which consisted mostly of patients classified as low risk, and patients from 16 cohort studies were included. In the RCTs, there was no significant difference in the odds of subsequent IUP in patients who underwent a salpingectomy compared with those who were treated with salpingotomy (odds ratio OR] 0.97; 95% confidence interval CI], 0.71–1.33). However, a significant and clinically meaningful difference was noted in the cohort studies, with the patients having a lower chance of IUP after salpingectomy (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39–0.52). No significant difference was noted in the OR for a REP in the randomized trials (OR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.41–1.47), but the patients followed in the cohort studies had a cumulatively higher risk of REP after a salpingostomy (OR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60–0.90).The subgroup analysis examining women within the studies with risk factors for tubal pathology found an even more impressive lowering in the odds of a subsequent IUP in patients classified as at-risk who were treated with salpingectomy (OR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17–0.54), with a change in the direction of the odds for an REP rate favoring those who were treated with salpingostomy (OR 1.96; 95% CI, 0.88–4.35).ConclusionSalpingectomy has clear advantages over salpingostomy, and RCTs consisting mainly of patients classified as low risk show no difference in outcomes between salpingectomy and salpingostomy. However, in cohort studies inclusive of all patients, the likelihood of a subsequent spontaneous IUP is decreased in patients treated with salpingectomy, and salpingostomies may be especially underused in women with risk factors for tubal disease.