|
The Cochrane Collaboration
Cochrane Reviews |
| Explore | New + Updated | Other languages |
|
|
|
Hysterectomy versus hysterectomy plus oophorectomy for premenopausal womenOrozco LJ, Salazar A, Clarke J, Tristán M SummaryHysterectomy versus hysterectomy plus oophorectomy for premenopausal womenRemoving the ovaries at the time of hysterectomy could potentially improve longevity as it reduces the risk of ovarian cancer and the need for future gynaecological procedures. However, women who have had their ovaries removed have also been reported to have an increase in cardiovascular disease. Currently, there are no good quality studies of the benefits or harms of removing the ovaries at the time of hysterectomy. Until well-designed studies that compare women undergoing hysterectomy with women undergoing hysterectomy and removing ovaries are undertaken, removing the ovaries at the time of hysterectomy should be approached with caution.
This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010 Issue 1, Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This version first published online:
July 16. 2008 AbstractBackground
ObjectivesTo determine whether premenopausal women with hysterectomy without oophorectomy for benign gynaecological conditions versus hysterectomy plus bilateral oophorectomy would have a higher mortality rate and future gynaecological surgical interventions. Search strategy
Selection criteriaRandomised controlled and controlled trials of hysterectomy (using any surgical approach) without oophorectomy versus hysterectomy (using any surgical approach) with bilateral oophorectomy in premenopausal women with benign gynaecological conditions. Data collection and analysisThree review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, determined study quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted where information was unclear. Main results
Of the 119 studies identified, only one controlled trial was included. Therefore, a quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible. The results of this study (with two publications) including 362 women were summarised in a narrative format. No randomised controlled trials were found. Authors' conclusionsThe conclusions of this review are limited by the lack of data. More research of higher methodological quality is needed. |