Hubbry Logo
OophorectomyOophorectomyMain
Open search
Oophorectomy
Community hub
Oophorectomy
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Oophorectomy
Oophorectomy
Oophorectomy
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Oophorectomy
ICD-10-PCS0UB00ZX - 0UB28ZZ
ICD-9-CM65.3-65.6
MeSHD010052

Oophorectomy or Oöphorectomy (/ˌoʊ.əfəˈrɛktəmi/; from Greek ᾠοφόρος, ōophóros, 'egg-bearing' and ἐκτομή, ektomḗ, 'a cutting out of'), historically also called ovariotomy, is the surgical removal of an ovary or ovaries.[1] The surgery is also called ovariectomy, but this term is mostly used in reference to non-human animals, e.g. the surgical removal of ovaries from laboratory animals. Removal of the ovaries of females is the biological equivalent of castration of males; the term castration is only occasionally used in the medical literature to refer to oophorectomy of women. In veterinary medicine, the removal of ovaries and uterus is called ovariohysterectomy (spaying) and is a form of sterilization.

The first reported successful human oophorectomy was carried out by Sir Sydney Jones at Sydney Infirmary, Australia, in 1870.[2]

Partial oophorectomy or ovariotomy is a term sometimes used to describe a variety of surgeries such as ovarian cyst removal, or resection of parts of the ovaries.[3] This kind of surgery is fertility-preserving, although ovarian failure may be relatively frequent. Most of the long-term risks and consequences of oophorectomy are not or only partially present with partial oophorectomy.

In humans, oophorectomy is most often performed because of diseases such as ovarian cysts or cancer; as prophylaxis to reduce the chances of developing ovarian cancer or breast cancer; or in conjunction with hysterectomy (removal of the uterus). In the 1890s people believed oophorectomies could cure menstrual cramps, back pain, headaches, and chronic coughing, although no evidence existed that the procedure impacted any of these ailments.[4]

The removal of an ovary together with the fallopian tube is called salpingo-oophorectomy or unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (USO). When both ovaries and both fallopian tubes are removed, the term bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is used. Oophorectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy are not common forms of birth control in humans; more usual is tubal ligation, in which the fallopian tubes are blocked but the ovaries remain intact. In many cases, surgical removal of the ovaries is performed concurrently with a hysterectomy. The formal medical name for removal of a woman's entire reproductive system (ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus) is "total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy" (TAH-BSO); the more casual term for such a surgery is "ovariohysterectomy". "Hysterectomy" is removal of the uterus (from the Greek ὑστέρα hystera "womb" and εκτομία ektomia "a cutting out of") without removal of the ovaries or fallopian tubes.

Oophorectomy is used as part of castration to punish some female sex offenders.[5]

Technique

[edit]

Oophorectomy for benign causes is most often performed by abdominal laparoscopy. Abdominal laparotomy or robotic surgery is used in complicated cases[clarification needed] or when a malignancy is suspected.[citation needed]

Statistics

[edit]

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 454,000 women in the United States underwent oophorectomy in 2004. The first successful operation of this type, account of which was published in the Eclectic Repertory and Analytic Review (Philadelphia) in 1817, was performed by Ephraim McDowell (1771–1830), a surgeon from Danville, Kentucky.[6] McDowell was dubbed as the "father of ovariotomy".[7][8] It later became known as Battey's Operation, after Robert Battey, a surgeon from Augusta, Georgia, who championed the procedure for a variety of conditions, most successfully for ovarian epilepsy.[9]

Indication

[edit]

Most bilateral oophorectomies (63%) are performed without any medical indication, and most (87%) are performed together with a hysterectomy.[10] Conversely, unilateral oophorectomy is commonly performed for a medical indication (73%; cyst, endometriosis, benign tumor, inflammation, etc.) and less commonly in conjunction with hysterectomy (61%).[10]

Special indications include several groups of women with substantially increased risk of ovarian cancer, such as high-risk BRCA mutation carriers and women with endometriosis who also have frequent ovarian cysts.[citation needed]

Bilateral oophorectomy has been traditionally done in the belief that the benefit of preventing ovarian cancer would outweigh the risks associated with removal of ovaries. However, it is now clear that prophylactic oophorectomy without a reasonable medical indication decreases long-term survival rates substantially[11] and has deleterious long-term effects on health and well-being even in post-menopausal women.[12] The procedure has been postulated as a possible treatment method for female sex offenders.[13]

The procedure is sometimes performed at the same time as hysterectomy in transgender men and non-binary people. The long term effects of oophorectomy in this population are not well studied.[14]

Cancer prevention

[edit]

Oophorectomy can significantly improve survival for women with high-risk BRCA mutations, for whom prophylactic oophorectomy around age 40 reduces the risk of ovarian and breast cancer and provides significant and substantial long-term survival advantage.[15] On average, earlier intervention does not provide any additional benefit but increases risks and adverse effects.

For women with high-risk BRCA2 mutations, oophorectomy around age 40 has a relatively modest benefit for survival; the positive effect of reduced breast and ovarian cancer risk is nearly balanced by adverse effects. The survival advantage is more substantial when oophorectomy is performed together with prophylactic mastectomy.[16][17]

The risks and benefits associated with oophorectomy in the BRCA1/2 mutation carrier population are different than those for the general population. Prophylactic risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is an important option for the high-risk population to consider. Women with BRCA1/2 mutations who undergo salpingo-oophorectomy have lower all-cause mortality rates than women in the same population who do not undergo this procedure. In addition, RRSO has been shown to decrease mortality specific to breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Women who undergo RRSO are also at a lower risk for developing ovarian cancer and first occurrence breast cancer. Specifically, RRSO provides BRCA1 mutation carriers with no prior breast cancer a 70% reduction of ovarian cancer risk. BRCA1 mutation carriers with prior breast cancer can benefit from an 85% reduction. High-risk women who have not had prior breast cancer can benefit from a 37% (BRCA1 mutation) and 64% (BRCA2 mutation) reduction of breast cancer risk. These benefits are important to highlight, as they are unique to this BRCA1/2 mutation carrier population.[18]

Endometriosis

[edit]

In rare cases, oophorectomy can be used to treat endometriosis by eliminating the menstrual cycle, which will reduce or eliminate the spread of existing endometriosis as well as reducing pain. Since endometriosis results from an overgrowth of the uterine lining, removal of the ovaries as a treatment for endometriosis is often done in conjunction with a hysterectomy to further reduce or eliminate recurrence.[citation needed]

Oophorectomy for endometriosis is used only as last resort, often in conjunction with a hysterectomy, as it has severe side effects for women of reproductive age. However, it has a higher success rate than retaining the ovaries.[19]

Partial oophorectomy (i.e., ovarian cyst removal not involving total oophorectomy) is often used to treat milder cases of endometriosis when non-surgical hormonal treatments fail to stop cyst formation. Removal of ovarian cysts through partial oophorectomy is also used to treat extreme pelvic pain from chronic hormonal-related pelvic problems.

Risks and adverse effects

[edit]

Surgical risks

[edit]

Oophorectomy is an intra-abdominal surgery and serious complications stemming directly from the surgery are rare. When performed together with hysterectomy, it has influence on choice of surgical technique as the combined surgery is much less likely to be performed by vaginal hysterectomy.[citation needed]

Laparotomic adnexal surgeries are associated with a high rate of adhesive small bowel obstructions (24%).[20]

An infrequent complication is injuring of the ureter at the level of the suspensory ligament of the ovary.[21]

Long-term effects

[edit]

Oophorectomy has serious long-term consequences stemming mostly from the hormonal effects of the surgery and extending well beyond menopause. The reported risks and adverse effects include premature death,[22][23] cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment or dementia,[24] parkinsonism,[25] osteoporosis and bone fractures, decline in psychological well-being,[26] and decline in sexual function. Hormone replacement therapy does not always reduce the adverse effects.[11]

Mortality

[edit]

Oophorectomy is associated with significantly increased all-cause long-term mortality except when performed for cancer prevention in carriers of high-risk BRCA mutations. This effect is particularly pronounced for women who undergo oophorectomy before age 45.[23]

The effect is not limited to women who have oophorectomy performed before menopause; an impact on survival is expected even for surgeries performed up to the age of 65.[27] Surgery at age 50-54 reduces the probability of survival until age 80 by 8% (from 62% to 54% survival), surgery at age 55-59 by 4%. Most of this effect is due to excess cardiovascular risk and hip fractures.[27]

Removal of ovaries causes hormonal changes and symptoms similar to, but generally more severe than, menopause. Women who have had an oophorectomy are usually encouraged to take hormone replacement drugs to prevent other conditions often associated with menopause. Women younger than 45 who have had their ovaries removed with prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy face a mortality risk 170% higher than women who have retained their ovaries.[23] Retaining the ovaries when a hysterectomy is performed is associated with better long-term survival.[22] Hormone therapy for women with oophorectomies performed before age 45 improves the long-term outcome and all-cause mortality rates.[23][28]

Menopausal effects

[edit]

Women who have had bilateral oophorectomy surgeries lose most of their ability to produce the hormones estrogen and progesterone, and lose about half of their ability to produce testosterone, and subsequently enter what is known as "surgical menopause" (as opposed to normal menopause, which occurs naturally in women as part of the aging process). In natural menopause the ovaries generally continue to produce low levels of hormones, especially androgens, long after menopause, which may explain why surgical menopause is generally accompanied by a more sudden and severe onset of symptoms than natural menopause, symptoms that may continue until the natural age of menopause.[29] These symptoms are commonly addressed through hormone therapy, utilizing various forms of estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, or a combination.[citation needed]

Cardiovascular risk

[edit]

When the ovaries are removed, a woman is at a seven times greater risk of cardiovascular disease,[30][31][32] but the mechanisms are not precisely known. The hormone production of the ovaries currently cannot be sufficiently mimicked by drug therapy. The ovaries produce hormones a woman needs throughout her entire life, in the quantity they are needed, at the time they are needed, in response to and as part of the complex endocrine system.

Osteoporosis

[edit]

Oophorectomy is associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and bone fractures.[33][34][35][36][37] A potential risk for oophorectomy performed after menopause is not fully elucidated.[38][39] Reduced levels of testosterone in women is predictive of height loss, which may occur as a result of reduced bone density.[40] In women under the age of 50 who have undergone oophorectomy, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is often used to offset the negative effects of sudden hormonal loss such as early-onset osteoporosis as well as menopausal problems like hot flashes that are usually more severe than those experienced by women undergoing natural menopause.

Adverse effect on sexuality

[edit]

Oophorectomy substantially impairs sexuality.[41] Substantially more women who had both an oophorectomy and a hysterectomy reported libido loss, difficulty with sexual arousal, and vaginal dryness than those who had a less invasive procedure (either hysterectomy alone or an alternative procedure), and hormone replacement therapy was not found to improve these symptoms.[42] In addition, oophorectomy greatly reduces testosterone levels, which are associated with a greater sense of sexual desire in women.[43] However, at least one study has shown that psychological factors, such as relationship satisfaction, are still the best predictor of sexual activity following oophorectomy.[44] Sexual intercourse remains possible after oophorectomy and coitus can continue. Reconstructive surgery remains an option for women who have experienced benign and malignant conditions.[45] : 1020–1348 

Effect on fertility

[edit]

Managing side effects of prophylactic oophorectomy

[edit]

Non-hormonal treatments

[edit]

The side effects of oophorectomy may be alleviated by medicines other than hormonal replacement. Non-hormonal biphosphonates (such as Fosamax and Actonel) increase bone strength and are available as once-a-week pills. Low-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as Paxil and Prozac alleviate vasomotor menopausal symptoms, i.e., "hot flashes".[46]

Hormonal treatments

[edit]

In general, hormone replacement therapy is somewhat controversial due to the known carcinogenic and thrombogenic properties of estrogen; however, many physicians and patients feel the benefits outweigh the risks in women who may face serious health and quality-of-life issues as a consequence of early surgical menopause. The ovarian hormones estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone are involved in the regulation of hundreds of bodily functions; it is believed by some doctors that hormone therapy programs mitigate surgical menopause side effects such as increased risk of cardiovascular disease,[47] and female sexual dysfunction.[48]

Short-term hormone replacement with estrogen has negligible effect on overall mortality for high-risk BRCA mutation carriers. Based on computer simulations, overall mortality appears to be marginally higher for short-term HRT after oophorectomy or marginally lower for short-term HRT after oophorectomy in combination with mastectomy.[49] This result can probably be generalized to other women at high risk in whom short-term (i.e., one- or two-year) treatment with estrogen for hot flashes may be acceptable.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Oophorectomy

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Oophorectomy is a surgical procedure involving the excision of one (unilateral) or both (bilateral) ovaries, typically performed to address ovarian malignancies, benign cysts, endometriosis, or as a prophylactic measure in individuals with elevated genetic risk for ovarian cancer, such as BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. The ovaries, almond-shaped gonadal structures located adjacent to the uterus, produce eggs and hormones including estrogen and progesterone, and their removal disrupts these functions, often necessitating concurrent salpingectomy to minimize fallopian tube-related cancer risks. Common indications encompass therapeutic removal for confirmed or suspected ovarian neoplasms, where bilateral oophorectomy alongside hysterectomy and staging can achieve cure in early-stage cancers, and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), which substantially lowers ovarian and breast cancer incidence—by up to 96% and 72%, respectively—in high-risk cohorts. Performed via minimally invasive laparoscopy or open laparotomy, the procedure carries perioperative risks like infection and bleeding, but its long-term consequences are pronounced in premenopausal cases: bilateral oophorectomy induces abrupt surgical menopause, elevating hazards of cardiovascular disease (pooled hazard ratio >1 for premenopausal timing), osteoporosis, cognitive decline, and potentially all-cause mortality in non-high-risk women, though hormone replacement may mitigate some effects. In BRCA mutation carriers, empirical data affirm RRSO's net survival benefit, reducing overall mortality by approximately 77% through cancer prevention, yet systematic reviews underscore trade-offs for prophylactic use in average-risk premenopausal women, where ovarian conservation until natural menopause preserves cardioprotective hormones and averts excess morbidity, prompting debates on optimal timing and selective application over routine practice. Controversies persist regarding the balance of oncologic gains against endocrine disruptions, with evidence indicating heightened fracture risk and bone density loss post-hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, particularly before age 50, challenging prior assumptions of unmitigated benefit in benign contexts.

Definition and Types

Definition

Oophorectomy is a surgical procedure to remove one (unilateral) or both (bilateral) ovaries from the female reproductive system. The ovaries are paired, almond-shaped organs, each approximately 3-5 cm in length, located in the pelvic cavity on either side of the uterus and attached via the ovarian ligament and mesovarium. These structures serve primary functions in gamete production—releasing mature ova during ovulation—and endocrine regulation, secreting hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, and androgens that influence reproductive cycles, secondary sexual characteristics, and bone health. Unilateral oophorectomy preserves the remaining ovary's capacity for ovulation and hormone production, whereas bilateral oophorectomy eliminates ovarian tissue entirely, typically inducing immediate surgical menopause in premenopausal women due to abrupt cessation of ovarian hormone output. The procedure may be performed via open laparotomy, laparoscopy, or robotic-assisted techniques, depending on clinical context, though specific procedural classifications are delineated separately. Oophorectomy differs from salpingo-oophorectomy, which additionally excises the fallopian tubes, but the term alone refers strictly to ovarian removal.

Classification of Procedures

Oophorectomy procedures are primarily classified by the extent of ovarian tissue removed, distinguishing between unilateral oophorectomy, which involves excision of a single ovary, and bilateral oophorectomy, which entails removal of both ovaries. Bilateral procedures induce immediate menopause due to complete loss of ovarian hormone production, whereas unilateral approaches preserve some endocrine function from the remaining ovary. Procedures are further subclassified based on concurrent removal of adjacent structures, particularly the fallopian tubes, resulting in salpingo-oophorectomy when one ovary and its ipsilateral tube are excised (unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy) or both ovaries and tubes are removed (bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, or BSO). Simple oophorectomy without salpingectomy is less common in contemporary practice, as tubal removal reduces ovarian cancer risk by interrupting potential pathways for malignant transformation. Surgical approaches classify oophorectomy by invasiveness and access method, with laparoscopy as the preferred minimally invasive technique involving small incisions, insufflation of the abdomen, and specialized instruments for dissection and specimen retrieval in a containment bag to minimize spillage risks. Open laparotomy employs a larger abdominal incision for direct visualization and is reserved for cases with suspected malignancy or anatomical complexities precluding laparoscopy. Vaginal approaches may be used selectively, often in conjunction with hysterectomy, offering reduced infection rates but limited applicability. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy enhances precision in select centers but follows similar principles to standard laparoscopy.

Historical Development

Origins in the 19th Century

The surgical removal of ovaries, initially termed ovariotomy, originated with procedures targeting diseased ovaries, particularly large cystic tumors, in the early 19th century. On December 25, 1809, American surgeon Ephraim McDowell performed the first successful ovariotomy on Jane Todd Crawford in Danville, Kentucky, excising a 22.5-pound ovarian cyst without anesthesia or antisepsis; Crawford survived for over 30 years post-operation, demonstrating the feasibility of abdominal surgery despite prevailing fears of peritonitis and sepsis. This landmark case, conducted in a remote setting, challenged medical orthodoxy that deemed ovarian extirpation impossible due to inevitable infection, and McDowell's 1817 publication in the Eclectic Repertory and Analytical Review detailed the technique, encouraging subsequent attempts. By the mid-19th century, ovariotomy gained traction in Britain and Europe for benign ovarian pathology, with mortality rates exceeding 50% initially due to hemorrhage, shock, and infection, though improvements in ligation techniques and patient selection reduced risks toward the century's end. Pioneers like Charles Clay in Manchester (1842) and Thomas Spencer Wells in London (from 1858) refined the procedure, performing hundreds of cases for ovarian cysts and tumors, establishing it as a viable intervention for life-threatening masses. A controversial expansion occurred in the 1870s with "normal ovariotomy," the removal of ostensibly healthy ovaries to treat non-malignant conditions such as hysteria, dysmenorrhea, neuralgia, and menstrual-related epilepsy, predicated on theories attributing psychiatric and neural symptoms to ovarian dysfunction. American gynecologist Robert Battey (1828–1895) performed the first documented such procedure on August 27, 1872, in Rome, Georgia, on a patient suffering severe neuralgia, coining the term to distinguish it from cystectomies and advocating it as a curative measure despite inducing surgical menopause and sterility. Battey's series of cases, publicized from 1872 to 1878, spurred adoption across the U.S. and Europe, with surgeons like Alfred Hegar in Germany performing similar excisions by 1872 for benign indications, though the practice faced sharp criticism for its experimental basis and complications, including high operative mortality (up to 20–30% in early reports) and induced menopausal symptoms.

20th Century Evolution

In the early 20th century, surgical approaches to oophorectomy emphasized ovarian conservation due to growing recognition of the ovaries' endocrine functions, with physicians like Louise McIlroy advocating preservation unless the ovaries were severely diseased to avoid inducing premature menopause. This conservatism contrasted with 19th-century practices but persisted amid high operative risks, even as anesthesia and antisepsis improved mortality rates from over 50% in the 1880s to under 5% by the 1920s. Indications remained focused on benign conditions such as cysts, tumors, and endometriosis, alongside oncologic needs, though prophylactic removal for non-malignant reasons was debated. By the 1930s, concerns over ovarian cancer's poor prognosis—often diagnosed late with insidious onset—drove expanded prophylactic oophorectomy, particularly bilateral removal during hysterectomy in perimenopausal women to prevent malignancy in residual ovarian tissue. This practice gained traction mid-century; for instance, by 1964, textbooks like Macleod and Howkins endorsed removal in women aged 45 or older, reflecting a risk-benefit calculus where lifetime ovarian cancer incidence (estimated at 1:3000–1:5000) justified intervention despite menopausal symptoms. Concurrently, oophorectomy emerged as the first endocrine adjuvant therapy for premenopausal breast cancer, achieving tumor regression in approximately 30% of advanced cases by inducing estrogen withdrawal, a approach pioneered in the late 19th century but standardized through 20th-century trials showing survival benefits in hormone-responsive tumors. Elective bilateral oophorectomy with hysterectomy became routine, with U.S. rates peaking in the latter half of the century, often exceeding 20% of procedures in women under 50. Techniques remained predominantly open abdominal throughout most of the century, leveraging advances in surgical instrumentation and postoperative care, including antibiotics from the 1940s that reduced infection risks. The advent of hormone replacement therapy in the 1950s, such as diethylstilbestrol, further facilitated acceptance by mitigating vasomotor and skeletal effects of surgical menopause. Toward the late 20th century, operative laparoscopy revolutionized approaches; building on diagnostic laparoscopy from the 1950s, gynecologic procedures like laparoscopic oophorectomy became feasible by the 1980s–1990s, enabling minimally invasive removal with smaller incisions, reduced recovery time, and lower morbidity compared to laparotomy. This shift marked a transition from radical excisions to more precise, fertility-sparing options in select cases, though open surgery dominated until widespread adoption post-1990.70374-4/abstract)

Recent Advances (Post-2000)

Laparoscopic oophorectomy became more prevalent in the early 2000s as a standard minimally invasive approach, offering shorter hospital stays, reduced blood loss, and lower postoperative pain compared to open surgery, with adoption driven by technological improvements in instrumentation and imaging. Robotic-assisted oophorectomy emerged shortly thereafter, with the first gynecologic robotic procedure—a tubal anastomosis—performed in 2000, followed by the inaugural robot-assisted hysterectomy incorporating oophorectomy in 2002; these systems provided enhanced precision, three-dimensional visualization, and tremor filtration, particularly beneficial for complex cases involving adhesions or obesity. By the 2010s, robotic platforms had expanded to single-site techniques, further minimizing incisions while maintaining oncologic safety in salpingo-oophorectomy for malignancy. Meta-analyses post-2010 confirm comparable outcomes to conventional laparoscopy in blood loss and complications for benign indications, though robotic approaches incur higher costs without consistent superiority in operative time or conversion rates. Post-2000 epidemiological data revealed a marked decline in bilateral oophorectomy rates, especially premenopausal procedures concurrent with hysterectomy, attributed to growing evidence of adverse long-term effects like accelerated aging, increased cardiovascular mortality, and osteoporosis when performed before age 45 without estrogen replacement. In the United States, incidence peaked around 2000–2004 but decreased thereafter across age groups, prompting guidelines favoring ovarian conservation in benign cases unless oncologic risks outweigh benefits. This shift aligns with studies quantifying elevated all-cause mortality risks in women under 50 undergoing the procedure, influencing surgical decision-making toward unilateral or delayed bilateral approaches where feasible. Advances in genetic screening post-2000, including widespread BRCA1/2 testing, refined prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy protocols, reducing ovarian cancer incidence by approximately 80% in high-risk carriers while balancing menopausal sequelae. Updated National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy at ages 35–40 for BRCA1 carriers and 40–45 for BRCA2, often with opportunistic salpingectomy as an interim strategy to delay menopause. Concurrent pathologic protocols emphasize meticulous examination of fallopian tubes, as serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma precursors predominate in BRCA-associated cases, informing more targeted resections. Management of induced surgical menopause has evolved with evidence-based hormone therapy protocols, prioritizing systemic estrogen (with progestin if uterus retained) in women under 50 to counteract deficits in bone mineral density, cardiovascular protection, and cognitive function, though uptake remains suboptimal due to historical concerns over malignancy risks unsubstantiated in this context. Longitudinal data underscore the need for individualized counseling on vasomotor symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and metabolic changes, with non-hormonal adjuncts like SSRIs for mood disorders gaining traction in HRT-intolerant patients.

Epidemiology and Statistics

Global and Regional Prevalence

In the United States, bilateral oophorectomy prevalence among women aged 20-84 years is approximately 10%, based on self-reported data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles 2011-2018, with notable regional disparities: 12.3% in the South, 10.8% in the Midwest, 9.4% in the West, and 8.0% in the Northeast. This prevalence rises sharply with age, from less than 1% among women aged 20-29 years to 29% among those aged 70-79 years. Unilateral oophorectomy is less common, comprising about 40% of oophorectomy procedures in population-based studies from defined regions like Olmsted County, Minnesota, over 1950-2018, though bilateral procedures predominate overall. Comprehensive global prevalence data for oophorectomy remain limited, as most epidemiological studies focus on high-income countries and often aggregate it with hysterectomy procedures, where concomitant oophorectomy occurs in 50-78% of benign cases historically but has declined since the early 2000s due to evidence of associated cardiovascular and mortality risks. Hysterectomy rates, a proxy for potential oophorectomy incidence, vary widely: approximately 255 per 100,000 women annually in Australia, higher than in many European nations like Denmark (around 351 per 100,000 but with trends toward ovarian conservation). In Europe and Asia, overall rates appear lower than in the US, reflecting lower hysterectomy utilization and greater emphasis on preserving ovarian function in premenopausal women for benign indications. In low- and middle-income regions such as parts of Africa and Asia, oophorectomy rates are substantially lower, driven by limited access to elective gynecologic surgery and lower incidence of procedures for non-oncologic reasons, though data gaps persist due to underreporting in national registries. Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in high-risk populations (e.g., BRCA mutation carriers) shows regional variation, with uptake rates exceeding 57% in some cohorts but higher in Northern European countries like Norway compared to others. Across regions, procedures for oncologic indications remain steady, while benign and risk-reduction cases have trended downward in monitored populations since 2000.

Long-Term Outcomes and Mortality Data

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) performed in premenopausal women for benign indications is associated with increased all-cause mortality compared to ovarian conservation, particularly when conducted before age 50 without subsequent estrogen therapy. In the Nurses' Health Study cohort of 30,398 women followed for 28 years, all-cause mortality was 16.8% among those undergoing hysterectomy with BSO versus 13.3% with ovarian conservation, yielding a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.17 (95% CI, 1.02-1.35). This elevated risk persisted after adjustments for confounders and was driven by higher mortality from coronary heart disease (HR 1.28), lung cancer (HR 1.92), and colorectal cancer (HR 1.73). Cardiovascular mortality shows a pronounced age-dependent increase following early BSO. A Mayo Clinic study of 1,273 women undergoing BSO before age 45 reported a 1.67-fold higher risk of cardiovascular death (95% CI, 1.04-2.70), with cardiac mortality specifically elevated at HR 1.89 (95% CI, 1.09-3.29), independent of estrogen use. Meta-analyses confirm this pattern, associating premenopausal BSO with greater incidence of cardiovascular events, including heart failure (relative risk 1.45, 95% CI 1.09-1.92), though overall cardiovascular mortality effects vary by follow-up duration and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) adherence. Cancer-specific outcomes reflect trade-offs: BSO reduces ovarian cancer risk but elevates others. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of 66 studies found BSO decreased ovarian cancer incidence (HR 0.15) and breast cancer mortality but increased colorectal cancer mortality (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.24-2.55), thyroid cancer, and renal cancer risks. All-cause mortality rose in women aged 45-54 at BSO (10-year rate higher by statistical significance), though benefits emerge in high-risk populations; among BRCA1/2 carriers, BSO lowered all-cause mortality (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.79) and breast cancer-specific death. HRT mitigates some risks but not fully. In the Nurses' Health Study, estrogen therapy post-BSO reduced but did not eliminate excess mortality in women under 50 (HR 1.12 vs. 1.67 without therapy). Long-term non-cancer outcomes include heightened osteoporosis and cognitive decline risks, with premenopausal BSO linked to dementia (adjusted OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14-2.25 by age 50). These data underscore causal links to ovarian hormone deprivation, with risks accruing over decades absent mitigation.

Indications

Oncologic Applications

Oophorectomy serves as a primary surgical intervention in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer, where bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is routinely combined with hysterectomy and comprehensive staging procedures to achieve maximal cytoreduction and assess disease extent. In early-stage disease, this approach facilitates adjuvant chemotherapy decisions, with NCCN guidelines endorsing six cycles of intravenous chemotherapy for stage I high-grade serous carcinoma following such surgery. For advanced stages, BSO contributes to debulking efforts, aiming for optimal residual disease less than 1 cm, which correlates with improved progression-free survival. In endometrial cancer management, particularly for apparent early-stage disease, total hysterectomy with BSO represents the standard surgical treatment, enabling pathologic evaluation and reducing recurrence risk by addressing potential occult ovarian involvement. This procedure is recommended for postmenopausal women, where ovarian preservation offers no survival benefit and may increase morbidity from metachronous ovarian neoplasms. In premenopausal patients, ovarian conservation may be considered selectively if no extrauterine disease is evident, though evidence indicates comparable oncologic outcomes with BSO in low-risk cases. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is indicated for women with hereditary predispositions, such as BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants, to mitigate ovarian cancer incidence by 80-96% and breast cancer risk by approximately 50%. Guidelines recommend RRSO between ages 35-40 for BRCA1 carriers and 40-45 for BRCA2 carriers, prior to natural menopause, yielding reductions in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.52) and breast cancer-specific mortality in long-term follow-up. This intervention also lowers second primary cancer risks, though it necessitates counseling on associated endocrine consequences like cardiovascular and skeletal effects. In colorectal cancer with ovarian metastases, palliative oophorectomy may extend survival in select cases, but its role remains adjunctive to systemic therapy.

Benign Gynecologic Conditions

Oophorectomy is indicated for benign gynecologic conditions when conservative treatments, such as watchful waiting, medical therapy, or cystectomy, fail to resolve persistent symptoms like severe pelvic pain, mass effect, or recurrent complications including torsion or rupture. In premenopausal women, ovarian conservation is generally preferred to avoid iatrogenic surgical menopause and its associated risks, including cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis, unless the pathology compromises ovarian viability or poses ongoing threats. Guidelines from organizations like ACOG emphasize cystectomy over oophorectomy for isolated benign cysts to preserve fertility and endocrine function. For benign ovarian cysts and neoplasms, such as functional cysts, dermoid cysts, or serous cystadenomas, unilateral oophorectomy may be performed if the lesion exceeds 5-10 cm, persists beyond 8-12 weeks despite observation, causes hemodynamic instability from rupture or torsion, or if imaging and tumor markers suggest a need for definitive histology despite benign features. In cases of adnexal torsion, oophorectomy is reserved for ovaries with irreversible ischemia, occurring in approximately 10-15% of detorsed cases where viability cannot be salvaged intraoperatively. Severe endometriosis involving the ovaries, particularly large endometriomas (>4 cm) refractory to hormonal suppression or prior excisions, may warrant oophorectomy to alleviate chronic pain and reduce recurrence risk, which approaches 20-40% after cystectomy alone. Bilateral oophorectomy is considered in advanced disease with deep infiltrating lesions or when combined with hysterectomy for symptom control, though evidence shows higher postoperative pain relief but at the cost of ovarian reserve depletion. Tubo-ovarian abscesses secondary to pelvic inflammatory disease, unresponsive to broad-spectrum antibiotics and percutaneous drainage, often necessitate salpingo-oophorectomy to prevent sepsis, with surgical intervention required in up to 15-20% of severe cases. Ectopic pregnancies with ovarian involvement or rupture may also prompt oophorectomy if conservative salpingostomy risks persistent trophoblast or ovarian damage. Across these indications, patient selection prioritizes those with completed family planning or perimenopausal status to mitigate long-term endocrine deficits.

Prophylactic and Risk-Reduction Scenarios

Prophylactic oophorectomy, typically performed as bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), is recommended for women at substantially elevated risk of ovarian cancer due to hereditary genetic mutations, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. This procedure removes both ovaries and fallopian tubes to prevent high-grade serous carcinoma, which often originates in the fallopian tubes. In BRCA1 carriers, the lifetime ovarian cancer risk approaches 40-60%, and in BRCA2 carriers, 10-30%, justifying risk-reduction surgery after completion of childbearing. Guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorse risk-reducing BSO (RRSO) for these high-risk groups, with timing advised at ages 35-40 for BRCA1 and 40-45 for BRCA2 mutation carriers to balance cancer prevention against premature menopause effects. RRSO reduces ovarian cancer incidence by 80-95% and overall mortality by approximately 68-94% in these populations, based on prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses. It also confers a 50% reduction in breast cancer risk, particularly if performed before age 40, due to elimination of ovarian hormone exposure, as evidenced by long-term follow-up data from BRCA cohorts. In Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer), characterized by mismatch repair gene mutations (e.g., MLH1, MSH2), prophylactic hysterectomy with BSO is an effective strategy to mitigate elevated risks of endometrial (40-60% lifetime) and ovarian (8-14% lifetime) cancers. A prospective study of 261 women with Lynch syndrome demonstrated near-complete prevention of gynecologic cancers following this surgery, with no cases observed post-procedure over extended follow-up. NCCN guidelines suggest considering BSO alongside hysterectomy upon completion of childbearing or near menopause, though ovarian cancer risk in Lynch is lower than in BRCA, influencing individualized decision-making. For carriers of other actionable deleterious mutations predisposing to ovarian cancer (e.g., RAD51C/D, BRIP1), ACOG recommends offering RRSO similar to BRCA protocols, though evidence is sparser and derived from smaller cohorts showing comparable risk elevations. Shared decision-making is emphasized, weighing benefits against surgical menopause risks like osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease, with hormone replacement therapy often advised until natural menopause age for non-breast cancer risks. Primary peritoneal carcinomatosis remains a rare residual risk (1-6%) post-RRSO across these syndromes.

Contraindications and Selection Criteria

Absolute and Relative Contraindications

No absolute contraindications exist for oophorectomy, as the procedure can technically be performed in nearly all scenarios when surgical risks are deemed manageable, though the ovaries' roles in hormone production and fertility necessitate individualized assessment. Relative contraindications include scenarios where the potential harms—such as irreversible infertility, premature menopause, or exacerbation of comorbidities—may outweigh benefits absent a compelling indication like malignancy. These encompass:
  • Desire for fertility preservation: Bilateral oophorectomy eliminates ovarian function and oocyte production, rendering natural conception impossible; unilateral procedures may preserve fertility if the contralateral ovary is functional, but this is weighed against disease risks.
  • Premenopausal status without oncologic imperative: In women under 45-50 years without high-risk genetic mutations (e.g., BRCA1/2) or confirmed pathology, removal induces surgical menopause, increasing risks of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and cognitive decline by 1.5-2-fold compared to natural menopause, per cohort studies. Guidelines advise conservation in low-risk benign cases to avoid these outcomes unless alternatives fail.
  • Prophylactic intent in very young women: For risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA carriers, procedures before age 30-35 are relatively discouraged without family history of ovarian cancer, as lifetime risk reduction must balance against 20-30% heightened mortality from non-oncologic causes like heart disease. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend delaying until completion of childbearing or age 35-40 for BRCA1, prioritizing surveillance alternatives.
  • Severe pelvic adhesions or adhesions: Extensive adhesive disease complicates access and raises intraoperative injury risk (e.g., bowel or ureteral damage in 1-2% of cases), favoring alternative approaches like staging or conservative management if feasible.
  • Uncontrolled comorbidities: Conditions like active pelvic infection, uncorrected coagulopathy, or decompensated cardiopulmonary disease elevate perioperative morbidity (e.g., thrombosis risk doubling in hypercoagulable states), rendering the procedure relatively inadvisable without optimization.
Patient selection emphasizes multidisciplinary evaluation, with relative contraindications often mitigated by laparoscopic techniques reducing recovery time by 50% versus open surgery, though long-term hormonal sequelae remain unalterable. In prophylactic contexts, hormone replacement post-oophorectomy is recommended unless contraindicated (e.g., estrogen-sensitive cancers), mitigating some relative concerns.

Patient-Specific Considerations

Patient selection for oophorectomy requires individualized assessment of reproductive goals, as bilateral removal induces immediate infertility and premature menopause, contraindicating the procedure in premenopausal women desiring future fertility unless oncologic urgency exists. In such cases, ovarian conservation or fertility-preserving alternatives, such as cryopreservation of ovarian tissue, should be prioritized where feasible. Age and menopausal status significantly influence decision-making, with elective bilateral oophorectomy before age 45 associated with elevated risks of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cognitive impairment, and all-cause mortality due to abrupt hormonal deprivation. Guidelines recommend ovarian conservation in premenopausal women without malignancy or high genetic risk, as conservation preserves endogenous estrogen benefits for bone, cardiovascular, and neurologic health; postmenopause or after age 50-55, risks diminish, favoring removal in benign hysterectomies if indicated. Comorbidities necessitate careful evaluation, as oophorectomy exacerbates conditions like preexisting cardiovascular disease or low bone density through estrogen loss; patients with severe adhesive disease from prior pelvic surgery or endometriosis face heightened intraoperative risks, potentially altering surgical feasibility. Risk stratification tools integrate factors such as age, comorbidities, and surgical history to guide conservation (low scores) versus removal (high scores ≥3), emphasizing shared counseling to balance procedure-specific hazards against underlying pathology. Genetic predisposition overrides many relative concerns, with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy recommended for BRCA1 carriers by ages 35-40 and BRCA2 by 40-45 after childbearing completion, reducing ovarian cancer risk by 80-90% despite menopause-related trade-offs. In average-risk patients, prophylactic removal lacks definitive support and is generally avoided to mitigate long-term morbidity. No absolute contraindications exist, but overall surgical candidacy, including anesthesia tolerance, must be confirmed preoperatively.

Surgical Techniques

Preoperative Evaluation and Preparation

Preoperative evaluation for oophorectomy involves a comprehensive assessment of the patient's medical history to determine surgical indications, such as ovarian neoplasms, benign conditions like ovarian torsion or endometriosis, or prophylactic removal in cases of hereditary cancer syndromes like BRCA1/2 mutations, while also identifying comorbidities including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or bleeding disorders that could elevate perioperative risks. A detailed surgical and social history is reviewed to evaluate prior abdominal procedures, fertility desires, menopausal status, and lifestyle factors like tobacco or alcohol use, which influence optimization strategies. Physical examination includes a pelvic assessment to characterize adnexal masses or abnormalities, alongside general evaluation for anesthesia fitness, such as airway and cardiopulmonary status. Laboratory testing is tailored to the indication but typically encompasses complete blood count to detect anemia, coagulation profile for bleeding risk, renal and hepatic function tests, and tumor markers like CA-125 or HE4 if malignancy is suspected; routine preoperative antibiotics are not indicated absent infection or concurrent procedures. Imaging, such as transvaginal ultrasound for initial adnexal evaluation or CT/MRI for staging in suspected oncologic cases, aids in confirming pathology and planning the surgical approach, though its reliability for distinguishing benign from malignant masses remains imperfect. Counseling is critical, particularly for bilateral oophorectomy, where patients receive informed consent on risks including immediate surgical complications, induced surgical menopause leading to vasomotor symptoms, osteoporosis, cardiovascular events, and infertility, balanced against benefits like ovarian cancer risk reduction exceeding 80% in high-risk cohorts; alternatives such as surveillance or ovarian conservation are discussed, with emphasis on hormone replacement therapy options for premenopausal women to mitigate long-term effects. Patient selection weighs these factors, favoring ovarian-sparing techniques in adolescents or benign pediatric cases unless necrosis mandates removal. Preparation emphasizes optimization through smoking cessation at least 4-8 weeks prior to reduce complications, management of anemia via iron supplementation if hemoglobin is low, and screening for sleep apnea or obesity-related risks using tools like the Caprini score for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis without routine hormone discontinuation. Enhanced recovery protocols recommend allowing clear fluids up to 2 hours and light solids up to 6 hours preoperatively, avoiding prolonged fasting or routine mechanical bowel preparation unless shared decision-making indicates otherwise for specific cases. Patients are instructed to shower with chlorhexidine gluconate the night before and morning of surgery, discontinue aspirin or NSAIDs 7 and 2 days prior respectively, halt herbal supplements 7 days ahead, and fast from solids after midnight while practicing incentive spirometry for postoperative lung function. Presurgical testing, including electrocardiogram and chest X-ray within 30 days for higher-risk patients, ensures overall fitness.

Intraoperative Methods

Intraoperative methods for oophorectomy primarily involve open laparotomy or minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopy or robotic-assisted laparoscopy, selected based on factors like suspected malignancy, adhesions, or surgeon expertise. Open laparotomy provides direct visualization and is preferred for complex cases or large masses, while laparoscopic and robotic techniques offer reduced tissue trauma and faster recovery in benign or early-stage scenarios. In open laparotomy, the patient is positioned supine, with the abdomen prepped and draped sterilely; a transverse incision (for cosmesis) or vertical incision (for exposure) is made, typically Pfannenstiel or midline. The peritoneum is entered, and retractors expose the pelvic structures; the infundibulopelvic ligament is identified, with the ureter located retroperitoneally to avoid injury. Dissection creates an avascular window in the broad ligament using sharp, blunt, or electrocautery methods; the infundibulopelvic ligament is clamped twice, transected, and suture-ligated with 0 absorbable suture or sealed with a vessel-sealing device. The utero-ovarian ligament and mesovarium are serially ligated and divided, detaching the ovary (and fallopian tube if salpingo-oophorectomy); hemostasis is ensured before placing the specimen in a bag for removal. Closure involves layered approximation of peritoneum, fascia, and skin. Unilateral procedures follow the same steps on one side, while bilateral require repetition, with left-sided cases potentially needing sigmoid colon mobilization. Laparoscopic oophorectomy begins with dorsal lithotomy or supine positioning and establishment of pneumoperitoneum via Veress needle or open Hasson entry at the umbilicus or alternative sites like Palmer's point for adhesions. Trocars (5-10 mm) are placed in lower quadrants and suprapubic regions; a laparoscope provides visualization in Trendelenburg position. The ureter is identified at the pelvic brim; the infundibulopelvic ligament is dissected, ligated, and transected using atraumatic graspers, electrocautery, or vessel-sealing devices, followed by division of the utero-ovarian ligament and mesovarium. The ovary is mobilized into an endoscopic retrieval bag and morcellated or removed intact via enlarged port site if necessary, with irrigation and hemostasis confirmation before desufflation and trocar removal. For risk-reduction bilateral oophorectomy, ligation occurs 2 cm proximal to the ovarian hilum to preserve ovarian blood supply remnants if needed. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy mirrors laparoscopic steps but employs a console-controlled system with wristed instruments for enhanced dexterity in dissection and suturing, particularly useful in obese patients or dense adhesions. Small incisions accommodate robotic trocars after initial laparoscopic access and docking of the robotic cart; the surgeon operates remotely via 3D visualization, ligating vessels with precise energy devices before specimen extraction similar to standard laparoscopy. This approach may increase operative time but reduces intraoperative complications in select gynecologic cases compared to open methods.

Postoperative Management

Following oophorectomy, patients are monitored in the recovery room until anesthesia effects subside, with most discharged the same day for laparoscopic or vaginal approaches, or after 1 to 3 days for open laparotomy procedures. Pain is managed with prescribed medications, and patients are instructed to keep incisions clean and dry, shower without soaking, and use sanitary pads rather than tampons to prevent infection. Activity restrictions typically last 2 to 6 weeks, depending on surgical approach, prohibiting heavy lifting, strenuous exercise, sexual intercourse, and driving while on narcotic pain relievers; full return to normal activities occurs in 2 to 4 weeks for most patients. Vigilance for complications includes monitoring for signs of infection (fever, redness, pus at incision sites), excessive pelvic pain, swelling, or symptoms of blood clots such as leg pain or shortness of breath, prompting immediate medical contact. Bilateral oophorectomy induces immediate menopause in premenopausal women, necessitating hormone replacement therapy (HRT) consideration to alleviate vasomotor symptoms and mitigate risks of osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease, particularly if performed before age 45 or 50. Transdermal estrogen is preferred for those at elevated venous thromboembolism risk, with progestin added if the uterus remains intact; therapy is individualized based on breast cancer history, symptom severity, and overall health, often continued until natural menopause age. Bone health assessment via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan within the first year post-surgery is recommended, alongside daily calcium (1000–1200 mg) and vitamin D (600–800 IU) supplementation. Long-term follow-up emphasizes cardiovascular monitoring through annual blood pressure and weight checks, plus encouragement of 150–300 minutes weekly of moderate aerobic exercise to counter elevated risks from surgical menopause. Unilateral oophorectomy spares ovarian function from the remaining ovary, generally avoiding menopausal induction unless underlying pathology affects it, though endocrine evaluation may be warranted in younger patients. Comprehensive preoperative counseling on these aspects improves adherence and outcomes.

Risks and Complications

Immediate Surgical and Perioperative Risks

Oophorectomy involves risks inherent to gynecologic surgery, including intraoperative hemorrhage from ovarian or pelvic vessels, with large vessel injury occurring in 0.1% to 0.64% of laparoscopic procedures. Organ injuries to adjacent structures such as the ureter, bladder, bowel, or iliac vessels arise due to their anatomical proximity during dissection, with genitourinary tract injuries reported in 1% to 2% of gynecologic surgeries. These risks increase with factors like adhesions from prior surgery, endometriosis, or malignancy distorting anatomy. Anesthesia-related complications, including adverse reactions to general anesthesia, occur at rates comparable to other major pelvic surgeries, though specific oophorectomy data emphasize respiratory or cardiovascular events in vulnerable patients. Conversion from laparoscopic to open laparotomy, necessitated by bleeding or inadequate visualization, affects approximately 2% of cases in elective laparoscopic oophorectomy. Postoperative short-term risks encompass wound infections, urinary tract infections, and ileus, with overall minor complications around 0.6% to 7% in risk-reducing procedures. Nerve neuropathies from prolonged positioning or retraction impact about 2% of patients, often resolving spontaneously. Thromboembolic events, such as deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, represent a perioperative concern mitigated by prophylaxis, though exact rates vary by patient comorbidities and surgical approach. Laparoscopic approaches generally yield lower overall complication rates (e.g., 20% versus 35% for open surgery) and shorter hospital stays compared to laparotomy.

Hormonal and Systemic Long-Term Effects

Bilateral oophorectomy induces surgical menopause through the abrupt cessation of ovarian hormone production, resulting in a profound and sustained decline in circulating estrogen levels, alongside reductions in progesterone and approximately 50% in testosterone. This hypoestrogenic state persists indefinitely without hormone replacement therapy (HRT), contrasting with the gradual decline in natural menopause, and is causally linked to multiple systemic disruptions due to estrogen's role in vascular, skeletal, and neural homeostasis. The procedure significantly elevates the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, as estrogen deficiency accelerates bone resorption and diminishes bone mineral density; systematic reviews confirm a negative association with bone health, with bilateral oophorectomy independently increasing fracture risk beyond that of hysterectomy alone. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rise markedly, particularly when performed before age 45, with cohort studies reporting doubled overall cardiovascular disease risk (relative risk 2.62; 95% CI: 2.05–3.35) and heightened cardiac mortality, attributed to endothelial dysfunction, dyslipidemia, and accelerated atherosclerosis from estrogen loss. Neurological effects include accelerated brain aging and cognitive decline, with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy associated with a 70% increased dementia risk in meta-analyses, alongside elevated long-term depressive and anxiety symptoms due to disrupted neuroendocrine signaling. Overall mortality is adversely affected, especially from cardiovascular causes, in women undergoing early oophorectomy without estrogen replacement, as evidenced by population-based studies showing excess deaths compared to those retaining ovaries or experiencing natural menopause. These effects underscore the procedure's causal role in iatrogenic endocrine deficiency, with mitigation dependent on timely HRT, though adherence and contraindications limit its universal applicability.

Effects on Reproduction and Sexual Health

Bilateral oophorectomy eliminates natural fertility by excising both ovaries, the sole endogenous source of mature oocytes, rendering spontaneous conception impossible without prior gamete cryopreservation or donor eggs. Unilateral oophorectomy preserves some reproductive potential via the remaining ovary but reduces overall ovarian reserve, with studies reporting a 53.9% elevated infertility risk compared to women without surgery, particularly if performed at younger ages. This diminished reserve correlates with lower anti-Müllerian hormone levels and fewer oocytes retrievable during assisted reproduction, though pregnancy rates in vitro fertilization cycles may remain comparable to bilateral ovarian cohorts when adjusted for age. The abrupt hypoestrogenism and hypoandrogenism from oophorectomy precipitate surgical menopause, frequently manifesting as vaginal atrophy, mucosal thinning, and diminished lubrication, which heighten dyspareunia prevalence to over 50% in premenopausal recipients within the first year.02177-9/fulltext) Libido reduction affects up to 60% of women postoperatively, attributable to ovarian androgen loss beyond what estrogen replacement alone restores, with prospective data showing sustained declines in sexual desire, arousal, and satisfaction even 15 years later.02177-9/fulltext) While topical estrogen mitigates atrophic vaginitis in many cases, androgen supplementation demonstrates efficacy in ameliorating desire deficits, underscoring the multifaceted hormonal etiology. Premenopausal timing exacerbates these disruptions compared to natural menopause, with endocrine-independent factors like body image alterations post-surgery compounding dysfunction in subsets.

Benefits and Evidence Base

Efficacy in Cancer Prevention

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations reduces ovarian cancer incidence by approximately 80% to 96%, based on prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses of high-risk carriers. This efficacy stems from the ovaries' role as primary sites of malignant transformation in hereditary syndromes, with fallopian tube involvement also mitigated by salpingectomy inclusion, though rare peritoneal primaries can occur post-surgery at rates of 2-6%. Long-term follow-up data confirm improved ovarian cancer-specific survival, with hazard ratios for mortality as low as 0.20 in surgical cohorts versus surveillance. For breast cancer prevention, BSO yields a 40-50% risk reduction in BRCA1 carriers, particularly when performed premenopausally, due to abrupt cessation of ovarian estrogen production, which drives hormone-sensitive tumorigenesis. BRCA2 carriers experience more modest reductions (around 30%), reflecting less estrogen dependence, though overall all-cause mortality drops significantly (HR 0.34) in surgical groups. Meta-analyses of non-overlapping studies affirm these estimates, with no evidence of increased non-breast cancer mortality offsetting gains in high-risk populations. In non-BRCA high-risk women (e.g., strong family history), BSO similarly lowers ovarian cancer risk by 60-80%, though data are sparser and derived from observational cohorts rather than randomized trials. Efficacy diminishes if delayed beyond age 40, as cumulative exposure to ovarian factors rises, underscoring causal links between ovulatory cycles and serous carcinoma etiology. While prophylactic BSO eliminates de novo ovarian malignancies effectively, incidental occult lesions are detected in 2-10% of specimens from carriers, highlighting its role in interrupting preclinical progression rather than absolute prevention.

Improvements in Benign Disease Management

In cases of severe endometriosis, particularly deep infiltrating disease refractory to conservative therapies, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) combined with hysterectomy has been associated with reduced reoperation rates for persistent pelvic pain compared to procedures preserving ovarian function. A 2022 cohort study of over 9,000 patients undergoing hysterectomy for endometriosis found that those receiving BSO had a reoperation rate of 7.1% versus 11.2% in the ovarian conservation group, with adjusted hazard ratios indicating a 36% lower risk of subsequent surgery. This approach alleviates symptoms by eliminating estrogen-dependent endometriotic lesions, though it induces surgical menopause, necessitating hormone replacement considerations. Similarly, for incidental endometriomas discovered in premenopausal women, unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (USO) outperforms surveillance, with evidence showing decreased progression to malignancy and symptom recurrence, as ovarian function is maintained contralaterally. For benign ovarian cysts, such as dermoid or functional cysts causing torsion or persistent symptoms, laparoscopic oophorectomy offers improved perioperative outcomes over open surgery, including shorter hospital stays (median 1-2 days versus 4-5 days) and lower infection rates (under 2% versus 5-10%). Advances in minimally invasive techniques, including single-port laparoscopy and contained morcellation, facilitate safer removal of large benign cysts (>10 cm) without spillage, reducing adhesion formation and enhancing recovery. However, these benefits are realized primarily when preoperative imaging (e.g., transvaginal ultrasound with Doppler) confirms benign pathology and conservation risks outweigh gains, as routine oophorectomy in average-risk cases lacks survival advantages and elevates long-term hormonal deficiency risks. Risk stratification tools have refined indications, prioritizing oophorectomy for women with elevated comorbidity burdens or recurrent benign pathology (e.g., tubo-ovarian abscesses), where it prevents complications like chronic infection. A 2023 framework integrates ovarian cancer risk scores with menopause-related morbidity estimates to guide decisions, promoting conservation in low-risk premenopausal patients while reserving removal for definitive symptom control. Patient-reported outcomes post-oophorectomy for endometriosis further indicate substantial health-related quality-of-life gains, with significant reductions in dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia scores persisting beyond 12 months. These developments underscore a targeted application, balancing symptom relief against endocrine sequelae.

Survival and Quality-of-Life Data

In women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants, prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared to surveillance alone. A 2024 cohort study of over 4,300 carriers reported a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.52 (95% CI 0.41–0.64) for all-cause mortality following BSO, with estimated cumulative mortality to age 75 years at 18% for BRCA1 carriers and 14% for BRCA2 carriers post-procedure, versus higher rates without intervention. This reflects an 80% reduction in ovarian cancer risk and net survival gains despite induced surgical menopause, as cancer prevention outweighs non-cancer mortality risks in high-risk groups. In contrast, for premenopausal women undergoing BSO for benign indications without genetic predisposition, long-term survival data indicate elevated risks. The Nurses' Health Study, tracking 30,117 postmenopausal women over 28 years, found bilateral oophorectomy associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.21; 16.8% vs. 13.3% death rate compared to ovarian conservation) and coronary heart disease mortality (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00–1.52), particularly pronounced before age 50 without estrogen therapy use (all-cause HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.04–1.92). Estrogen therapy mitigated these effects (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94–1.17 for users), highlighting hormonal deficiency as a causal factor in excess cardiovascular and overall mortality. For therapeutic oophorectomy in ovarian cancer, survival outcomes are tied to comprehensive cytoreductive surgery including BSO, with 5-year overall survival rates averaging 47% across stages, improving to over 90% for localized disease but dropping below 30% for distant metastases; procedure-specific isolation is challenging due to multimodal therapy, though complete resection correlates with median survival exceeding 5 years versus 2–3 years with residual disease. Quality-of-life (QoL) data post-premenopausal BSO reveal domain-specific declines, primarily from abrupt estrogen loss inducing menopausal symptoms in up to 80% of cases, including vasomotor disturbances, vaginal dryness, sexual dysfunction, and sleep/mood alterations that peak within months and may persist. A randomized trial secondary analysis of 161 premenopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease showed BSO linked to smaller 6-month improvements in SF-36 mental health scores (4 vs. 10 points), body image, and sleep problems compared to ovarian conservation, though differences attenuated by 2 years and sexual functioning remained comparable. In risk-reducing contexts, symptoms impair daily functioning but are often rated mild, with hormone replacement therapy restoring much of the deficit; untreated cohorts report sustained impacts on sexual satisfaction and emotional well-being, underscoring the trade-off against cancer prevention benefits in high-risk populations.

Management of Side Effects

Hormonal Therapies

Hormonal therapies following oophorectomy primarily consist of systemic estrogen replacement to address the abrupt hypoestrogenism induced by surgical menopause, which occurs in premenopausal women and leads to severe vasomotor symptoms, accelerated bone loss, increased cardiovascular risk, and cognitive decline. Guidelines from the British Menopause Society recommend offering hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to all women under 45 years undergoing surgical menopause, continuing at least until age 51—the average natural menopause age—unless contraindicated, to mitigate these effects. For women with an intact uterus, combined estrogen-progestogen therapy is used to prevent endometrial hyperplasia, while estrogen-only therapy suffices post-hysterectomy. Estrogen therapy effectively controls climacteric symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats, reduces osteoporosis risk by preserving bone mineral density, and lowers long-term mortality in younger women. A study of women post-bilateral oophorectomy found that estrogen initiation in their 50s yielded a nearly one-third reduction in all-cause mortality over 18 years, contrasting with elevated risks without replacement. Transdermal estradiol (doses 0.025–0.1 mg/day) is preferred over oral forms to minimize venous thromboembolism risk via first-pass liver effects, with initiation ideally within 1–2 months post-surgery for premenopausal patients absent contraindications like active breast cancer. In select cases, testosterone supplementation addresses persistent hypoandrogenism-related issues like reduced libido and sexual function, as ovaries contribute significantly to androgen production; evidence indicates estradiol improves psychological symptoms, while testosterone enhances desire and satisfaction post-oophorectomy. Risks, including breast cancer and cardiovascular events observed in older postmenopausal cohorts from trials like WHI, appear attenuated in younger surgical menopause patients using estrogen-only regimens, with North American Menopause Society guidelines endorsing immediate therapy for symptom relief and disease prevention. Individualized monitoring for contraindications and periodic reassessment is essential, as benefits generally outweigh harms until natural menopause age.

Non-Pharmacological Approaches

Lifestyle modifications, such as avoiding dietary triggers like spicy foods, caffeine, and alcohol, maintaining a cool sleeping environment, using paced breathing techniques, and wearing layered clothing, can provide modest relief from vasomotor symptoms (VMS) including hot flashes and night sweats following oophorectomy-induced menopause. These strategies are recommended in clinical guidelines for surgical menopause management, though randomized controlled trials demonstrate only small reductions in VMS frequency and severity compared to no intervention. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has demonstrated efficacy in reducing the perceived bother and impact of VMS in women experiencing menopausal symptoms, with meta-analyses of randomized trials showing short- and medium-term improvements in hot flash distress, sleep quality, and mood, independent of age or baseline psychological factors. In the context of abrupt estrogen loss post-oophorectomy, CBT's benefits extend to mitigating sleep disturbances and anxiety, as evidenced by trials applicable to surgical menopause populations, though long-term effects remain understudied. Acupuncture offers potential symptom relief, with a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of 209 women (including 27% with surgical menopause) reporting a 36.7% reduction in VMS frequency at 6 months compared to a 6.0% increase in waitlist controls, alongside improvements in sleep and quality of life persisting to 12 months. However, evidence from systematic reviews indicates inconsistent results across studies, with benefits often comparable to sham acupuncture, suggesting a partial placebo component. For mitigating bone density loss—a common long-term effect of bilateral oophorectomy, with cohort studies showing accelerated declines in lumbar spine, hip, and forearm bone mineral density within 1-2 years post-surgery—weight-bearing exercises such as walking, jogging, or resistance training are advised to stimulate osteogenesis and preserve skeletal health. Prospective data from high-risk cohorts confirm that regular physical activity levels do not fully offset oophorectomy-associated fracture risk but contribute to maintaining bone mass when combined with monitoring. Aerobic exercise further addresses elevated cardiovascular risks by improving endothelial function and lipid profiles in estrogen-deficient states. Mindfulness-based interventions like yoga show limited and mixed evidence for VMS reduction in general menopause but require caution post-oophorectomy, as one cross-sectional analysis of 199 women after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy found mindfulness-based stress reduction associated with increased somatic-vegetative and psychological symptom intensity. Overall, non-pharmacological strategies serve as adjuncts rather than primary treatments, with efficacy varying by symptom domain and individual factors, necessitating personalized application alongside regular health surveillance.

Multidisciplinary Support Strategies

Multidisciplinary support strategies for patients undergoing oophorectomy emphasize coordinated care to mitigate the abrupt onset of surgical menopause and its multifaceted consequences, including vasomotor symptoms, bone density loss, cardiovascular risks, and psychological distress. These approaches integrate specialists such as gynecologists, endocrinologists, cardiologists, neurologists, and menopause experts to provide holistic management, particularly for premenopausal women or those at high genetic risk like BRCA carriers undergoing risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Core team roles involve primary care providers for initial counseling and ongoing monitoring, oncology teams for cancer-risk contexts, and referral pathways to address long-term needs like osteoporosis screening and cognitive health assessments. For instance, post-RRSO protocols include educational materials on chronic disease prevention and specialist referrals, with 94% of patients in a 2023-2024 pilot finding resources accessible. Psychological support, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), targets anxiety, depression, and body image issues arising from fertility loss or hormonal changes. Strategies encompass pre- and postoperative on symptom trajectories and treatment options, seamless handoff to for hormone replacement therapy (HRT) continuity until age 51 unless contraindicated, and integration such as exercise programs for strength and mobility. In breast cancer survivors post-oophorectomy, consultation with teams guides HRT decisions to balance recurrence risks. Routine follow-up protocols monitor for genitourinary and sexual , often incorporating multidisciplinary clinics for tailored interventions. Evidence indicates these strategies enhance adherence and quality of life, with HRT under multidisciplinary oversight reducing osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, and dementia risks more effectively than isolated care. Patient feedback from integrated models shows high satisfaction (98% positive), underscoring feasibility in bridging acute surgical recovery with preventive health. Such frameworks are recommended in guidelines for surgical menopause, prioritizing evidence-based risk stratification over fragmented treatment.

Controversies and Critical Debates

Optimal Timing and Age Thresholds

For women at high genetic risk, such as BRCA1 mutation carriers, clinical guidelines recommend risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) between ages 35 and 40 after completion of childbearing, while BRCA2 carriers may delay until 40 to 45 years to balance ovarian cancer prevention against premature menopause risks. This timing reflects modeling showing maximal life expectancy gains from early intervention, though real-world data indicate persistent debates over whether delaying beyond age 35 in BRCA1 carriers could mitigate cardiovascular and skeletal harms without substantially elevating cancer incidence. In average-risk women undergoing hysterectomy for benign conditions, prophylactic oophorectomy before age 45 is associated with 1.5-fold higher cardiovascular mortality and increased all-cause mortality, prompting recommendations to conserve ovaries until at least age 50 unless specific indications exist. Longitudinal studies, including those from the Mayo Clinic, underscore that such early removal induces iatrogenic menopause, elevating risks of osteoporosis, cognitive decline, and chronic diseases that may outweigh the modest ovarian cancer risk reduction (approximately 94% but rare in low-risk groups). Controversies persist regarding precise thresholds, as some models advocate concurrent oophorectomy at hysterectomy after age 50 for average-risk women to prevent occult pathologies, while others highlight insufficient evidence for routine application given non-cancer mortality burdens. Empirical data from BRCA cohorts show RRSO reduces ovarian cancer mortality by up to 80%, yet analogous benefits in lower-risk populations remain unproven, fueling calls for individualized risk-benefit assessments over age-based defaults.

Prophylactic Use in Genetic Carriers

Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is recommended for women carrying BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations to substantially lower the lifetime risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers, which approaches 40-60% for BRCA1 carriers and 10-30% for BRCA2 carriers without intervention. Prospective cohort studies demonstrate that RRSO reduces these gynecologic cancer risks by 80-96%, with similar reductions observed in overall mortality from BRCA-related cancers. Additionally, premenopausal RRSO decreases subsequent breast cancer incidence by approximately 50%, attributed to the elimination of ovarian hormone exposure, though this protective effect diminishes if performed postmenopausally. These benefits are supported by long-term follow-up data from mutation carrier registries, yet residual risks persist, including a 3-4% incidence of primary peritoneal carcinoma post-RRSO. Debates center on the optimal timing of RRSO, balancing cancer prevention against induced surgical menopause, which accelerates age-related comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and cognitive impairment independent of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) efficacy. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines advise RRSO between ages 35-40 for BRCA1 carriers and 40-45 for BRCA2 carriers, reflecting BRCA1's higher and earlier ovarian cancer penetrance, but these thresholds derive from expert consensus on observational data rather than randomized trials, prompting questions about generalizability. Simulation models suggest that delaying RRSO by 5-10 years in BRCA1 carriers could yield life expectancy gains of 1-9.9 years by averting premature menopause risks, though such projections assume imperfect surveillance and undervalue occult high-grade serous carcinomas detected in 2-11% of prophylactic specimens. For BRCA2 carriers, later intervention aligns with their comparatively delayed cancer onset, yet empirical evidence shows variable uptake, with only 20-50% of unaffected carriers electing surgery within recommended windows, influenced by fertility desires and HRT tolerability concerns. Applicability beyond BRCA1/2 remains contentious, particularly for moderate-penetrance genes like RAD51C/D, BRIP1, or Lynch syndrome-associated mismatches (e.g., MSH2, MLH1), where ovarian cancer risks are 5-15% lifetime and RRSO evidence is extrapolated from smaller cohorts showing 60-80% risk reductions without comparable breast cancer benefits. Guidelines vary, with NCCN endorsing RRSO for these groups post-childbearing but lacking prospective validation, raising over-treatment risks in lower-penetrance scenarios where surveillance or chemoprevention might suffice. Emerging strategies, such as interval salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy, aim to target fallopian tube precursors of high-grade serous carcinoma while preserving ovarian function, but randomized data are absent, and observational series report persistent ovarian cancer risks of 4-6% with opportunistic salpingectomy alone. Post-RRSO HRT up to age 50 mitigates menopausal symptoms without abrogating breast cancer risk reduction, per cohort analyses, yet debates persist on its cardiovascular safety in mutation carriers, who exhibit elevated baseline risks. Overall, while RRSO's net survival advantage is affirmed in high-risk BRCA cohorts, individualized decision-making must weigh these trade-offs against imperfect alternatives like transvaginal ultrasound and CA-125 screening, which fail to detect early-stage disease reliably.

Overutilization and Preservation of Ovarian Function

Bilateral oophorectomy performed without a cancer indication or strong clinical necessity has been documented at high rates, particularly in conjunction with hysterectomy for benign conditions. In a study of premenopausal women undergoing hysterectomy, 44% received oophorectomy, with 21% showing benign pathology and 23% lacking any pathology report, indicating frequent removal absent malignant findings. Among premenopausal oophorectomies at the time of hysterectomy, 37% were classified as inappropriate based on documented reasons for removal. Historical trends show that, among women aged 40–49 without ovarian indications, the incidence of bilateral oophorectomy more than doubled between 1960–1964 and 1980–1984, reflecting a period of expanded prophylactic practice before evidence of long-term harms emerged. Unnecessary bilateral oophorectomy, especially before age 50, induces abrupt estrogen deficiency and is linked to elevated health risks that often exceed the preventive benefits for average-risk women. Observational data indicate a 12% increase in all-cause mortality over 24 years following oophorectomy without conservation, alongside heightened risks of coronary heart disease, hip fracture, and cognitive impairment. In women undergoing hysterectomy before age 50, oophorectomy correlates with increased mortality from coronary heart disease, colorectal cancer, and total cancers compared to ovarian conservation. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at non-malignant hysterectomy is associated with higher all-cause mortality in women under 50, though not in older cohorts, underscoring age-dependent causality from hormonal abruption. These risks persist even with hormone therapy in some cases, as estrogen replacement does not fully mitigate cardiovascular or neurological deficits. Preservation of ovarian function is prioritized in guidelines for benign gynecologic surgery to avert premature menopause and its sequelae, unless contraindicated by malignancy risk or pathology. Ovarian conservation during hysterectomy for benign disease reduces ovarian cancer incidence by 34% relative to no intervention, while avoiding the broader morbidity of oophorectomy. Opportunistic salpingectomy—removal of fallopian tubes without oophorectomy—serves as an alternative for epithelial ovarian cancer risk reduction, preserving ovarian function as evidenced by stable serum markers of estrogen production. In premenopausal women, routine bilateral oophorectomy is not supported; instead, unilateral procedures or conservation are favored when feasible, with studies showing no survival detriment from unilateral oophorectomy for non-cancer indications. For women under 45 with benign conditions, oophorectomy before natural menopause is linked to lower survival to age 80 (52.8% vs. 63.5% with conservation), reinforcing empirical preference for preservation.

Alternatives and Preventive Strategies

Surveillance and Screening Modalities

Surveillance for ovarian cancer risk in women who defer or decline oophorectomy primarily relies on serial transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and serum CA-125 measurements, typically initiated between ages 30 and 35 years and repeated every 6 to 12 months until risk-reducing surgery is performed. These modalities aim to detect early abnormalities, such as ovarian masses or elevated tumor markers, though their implementation varies by guideline and provider. In some protocols, multimodal approaches incorporate additional imaging like MRI for suspicious findings, but these are not standardized. Evidence from prospective studies demonstrates limited effectiveness of TVUS and CA-125 in reducing mortality among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, with screen-detected cancers often diagnosed at advanced stages despite regular monitoring. For instance, a Dutch cohort study of high-risk women found that annual surveillance failed to improve survival, as interval cancers progressed rapidly and false-positive results led to unnecessary interventions. Sensitivity for early-stage disease remains low, with CA-125 elevation frequently absent in initial presentations and TVUS prone to missing subtle tubal or peritoneal precursors. Major guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), explicitly state that no validated screening strategy has proven mortality benefit in high-risk populations, leading to recommendations against routine use outside clinical trials. The U.S. National Cancer Institute notes that while these tests may detect some cases, they do not alter overall risk or outcomes comparably to prophylactic oophorectomy, which achieves 80-96% risk reduction. Patient education on symptoms—such as persistent bloating, pelvic pain, or early satiety—supplements imaging and biomarkers, as reliance on surveillance alone correlates with higher disease-specific mortality. Ongoing research explores novel biomarkers like HE4 or risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA) refinements, but current data do not support their superiority over standard methods.

Delayed or Partial Interventions

Risk-reducing salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (RRS-DO) has emerged as a staged alternative to immediate bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) for women at hereditary high risk of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), such as BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, aiming to balance cancer prevention with preservation of ovarian function and avoidance of premature menopause. In this approach, the fallopian tubes are removed first—often opportunistically during procedures like hysterectomy or as a standalone intervention—followed by oophorectomy deferred until a later age, typically around 40-50 years, based on individualized risk assessment. This strategy leverages evidence that many high-grade serous carcinomas, the predominant EOC subtype, originate in the distal fallopian tube fimbriae rather than the ovarian surface epithelium, potentially mitigating early serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) precursors while retaining ovarian hormone production. Clinical rationale for delay stems from the substantial morbidity of surgical menopause induced by RRSO, including increased risks of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cognitive decline, and sexual dysfunction, which can occur even with hormone replacement therapy. Retrospective data indicate that salpingectomy alone reduces ovarian cancer incidence by approximately 42-65% in the general population compared to no intervention, though efficacy in high-risk cohorts remains under evaluation through prospective trials like the PROTECTOR and TUBO studies. For BRCA carriers, RRSO typically slashes EOC risk by 80-96% when performed by age 35-40, but RRS-DO may offer interim protection against tubal-origin cancers while postponing menopausal sequelae until natural perimenopause aligns more closely with chronological age. Patient acceptability surveys show moderate uptake, with 20-50% of high-risk women expressing preference for this option to maintain fertility or quality of life, though concerns persist over incomplete risk reduction from retained ovaries. Partial interventions, such as unilateral oophorectomy or ovarian tissue preservation techniques, are less standardized for primary prevention but may apply in scenarios like unilateral adnexal pathology or fertility-sparing contexts. Unilateral oophorectomy preserves the contralateral ovary's endocrine function, reducing but not eliminating bilateral cancer risk, with studies reporting 50-70% overall ovarian cancer risk reduction in average-risk women undergoing hysterectomy with unilateral preservation versus bilateral removal. Emerging techniques, including partial ovarian resection or cryopreservation of ovarian cortex for later autotransplantation, aim to excise suspicious lesions while conserving viable stroma, but long-term oncologic safety data are limited, with risks of residual malignant cells and technical feasibility challenges. In premenopausal women with early-stage endometrial cancer, ovarian preservation—often entailing avoidance of any oophorectomy—demonstrates cost-effectiveness and comparable survival to oophorectomy when tumors are low-grade and unifocal, prioritizing hormonal and reproductive health without evident compromise in disease-free outcomes. Implementation of delayed or partial strategies requires rigorous genetic counseling, serial surveillance (e.g., transvaginal ultrasound and CA-125 monitoring), and multidisciplinary oversight to monitor for occult malignancy, as incomplete excision could permit progression of ovarian-surface or peritoneal precursors not addressed by tubal removal alone. Current guidelines from bodies like ACOG endorse opportunistic salpingectomy as a general preventive measure but caution that RRS-DO lacks level I evidence for equivalence to RRSO in high-risk groups, with ongoing trials needed to quantify absolute risk reductions and optimal delay intervals. These approaches underscore a shift toward personalized risk mitigation, weighing empirical tubal pathogenesis data against the causal harms of iatrogenic hypogonadism, though adoption remains cautious pending definitive prospective validation.

Non-Surgical Risk-Reduction Methods

Oral contraceptive use significantly reduces the risk of ovarian cancer in the general population, with a 2024 meta-analysis of observational studies demonstrating a statistically significant inverse association between ever-use and incidence, yielding an odds ratio of approximately 0.73 for ever-users compared to never-users. Longer durations of use correlate with greater protection; for instance, five or more years of use is associated with roughly a 50% risk reduction, an effect that persists for decades after discontinuation. This protective mechanism is attributed to suppression of ovulation, which limits repetitive ovarian epithelial trauma, and similar benefits extend to high-risk groups such as BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, where extended use lowers lifetime risk without elevating breast cancer incidence in most analyses. However, oral contraceptives slightly increase breast cancer risk during use, necessitating individualized risk-benefit assessment, particularly in women with familial predispositions. Reproductive factors also contribute to non-surgical risk mitigation through natural suppression of ovulation. Full-term pregnancies reduce ovarian cancer risk by 10-20% per pregnancy, as evidenced by cohort studies linking multiparity to lower incidence via decreased ovulatory cycles over a woman's lifetime. Breastfeeding further enhances this effect; durations of one year or more are associated with a modest 10-20% risk reduction, independent of parity, based on pooled analyses from large epidemiological datasets. These associations hold across histological subtypes, though evidence is observational and confounded by socioeconomic factors, underscoring that while causal inference is supported by biological plausibility, absolute risk reductions are smaller in low-incidence populations. Lifestyle modifications offer supplementary, albeit less robust, risk reduction. Regular moderate-to-vigorous physical activity is linked to a 20-30% lower ovarian cancer risk in prospective studies, potentially through hormonal regulation and inflammation reduction, though systematic reviews emphasize the need for consistent adherence to achieve measurable benefits. Maintaining a healthy body weight mitigates obesity-related risk elevation, as adiposity independently increases incidence by 10-20% via estrogen excess and insulin pathways, per meta-analyses of anthropometric data. Dietary patterns low in saturated fats and high in vegetables may confer minor protection, but systematic reviews find inconsistent evidence for specific nutrients, with no single intervention matching the magnitude of hormonal suppression. Smoking cessation is advisable, as tobacco use modestly elevates risk, particularly for mucinous subtypes, though quitting yields partial reversal over time. Overall, these approaches are most effective when combined with medical counseling for high-risk individuals, but they do not substitute for genetic screening or surveillance in hereditary cases.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559235/
  2. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/oophorectomy/about/pac-20385030
  3. https://www.gavinpublishers.com/article/view/risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy-in-patients-at--high-risk-of-epithelial-ovarian-and-fallopian-tube-cancer-a-review-article
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019483225001646
  5. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2785986
  6. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2815703
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937823004416
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12028788/
  9. https://academic.oup.com/ejendo/article/193/3/S15/8239986
  10. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2823%2900441-6/fulltext
  11. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/oophorectomy
  12. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/17800-oophorectomy
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1356272/
  14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8768313/pdf/buffmedj141644-0001.pdf
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2652903/
  16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9989872/
  17. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/eponyms-and-names-in-obstetrics-and-gynaecology/battey-robert-18251895/6CCC39B854CB3507507542E6B808BF26
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6352389/
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11097591_Oophorectomy_for_Breast_Cancer_History_Revisited
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8532166/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8714650/
  22. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15533506241238038
  23. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/advances-robotic-surgery-are-changing-hysterectomy-2024a1000cwy
  24. https://ales.amegroups.org/article/view/5505/html
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10663391/
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9015031/
  27. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2022/05000/time_trends_in_unilateral_and_bilateral.3.aspx
  28. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-067528
  29. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/OP.21.00382
  30. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncr.29321
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048891X24045389
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8792973/
  33. https://thebms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/13-BMS-TfC-Surgical-Menopause-SEPT2024-D.pdf
  34. https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article/19/12/1778/7012910
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11980043/
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39011627/
  37. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/15/4/158
  38. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aogs.14531
  39. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajo.13478
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8180274/
  41. https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-022-02072-7
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2936778/
  43. https://journals.lww.com/menopausejournal/fulltext/2015/07000/trends_in_bilateral_salpingo_oophorectomy_among.15.aspx
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4254662/
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23635669/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2755630/
  47. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/M22-1628
  48. https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/content/PDF/ovarian-patient.pdf
  49. https://jnccn.org/view/journals/jnccn/19/2/article-p191.xml
  50. https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1453
  51. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/endometrial-cancer/treating/by-stage.html
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3924736/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9528924/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6722681/
  55. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2825%2900156-1/fulltext
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7356671/
  57. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2022/05000/a_revised_markov_model_evaluating_oophorectomy_at.4.aspx
  58. https://www.dynamed.com/procedure/oophorectomy-and-ovarian-cystectomy
  59. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/oophorectomy-and-ovarian-cystectomy
  60. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1848505-overview
  61. https://drseckin.com/oophorectomy-indications-procedure-and-risks/
  62. https://www.medindia.net/health/surgical-procedure/ovary-removal-oophorectomy-indications.htm
  63. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448125/
  64. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-bulletin/articles/2017/09/hereditary-breast-and-ovarian-cancer-syndrome
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5388383/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8932494/
  67. https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/brca1-and-brca2-mutations
  68. https://www.sgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/PB-182.pdf
  69. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2823%2900380-0/fulltext
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7050151/
  71. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2776761
  72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16421367/
  73. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa052627
  74. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41436-020-01029-1
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9662899/
  76. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1894587-overview
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8653240/
  78. https://www.verywellhealth.com/side-effects-and-risks-of-oophorectomy-3157255
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7614764/
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10774383/
  81. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/04/opportunistic-salpingectomy-as-a-strategy-for-epithelial-ovarian-cancer-prevention
  82. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/gynecologic-surgery-overview-of-preoperative-evaluation-and-preparation
  83. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2018/09/perioperative-pathways-enhanced-recovery-after-surgery
  84. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/risk-reducing-salpingo-oophorectomy-in-patients-at-high-risk-of-epithelial-ovarian-and-fallopian-tube-cancer
  85. https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/patient-education/about-your-bilateral-salpingo-oophorectomy
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4251548/
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7617419/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4272502/
  89. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30308307/
  90. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20409655/
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7526044/
  92. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tog.12799
  93. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2217/WHE.09.42
  94. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2785983
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2716666/
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3256559/
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4581591/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4381026/
  99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28872775/
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7938940/
  101. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28333842/
  102. https://academic.oup.com/jsm/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf183/8215413
  103. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200009073431002
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3631541/
  105. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17476149/
  106. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa012158
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2639318/
  108. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20733460/
  109. https://www.sgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Prophylactic-Salpingo-Oop..pdf
  110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36029832/
  111. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2822%2900687-1/fulltext
  112. https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/study-supports-salpingo-oophorectomy-for-management-of-incidental-endometrioma-in-premenopausal-women
  113. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15573848/
  114. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34248340/
  115. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2810032
  116. https://www.ejog.org/article/S0301-2115%2813%2900337-0/fulltext
  117. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(25)00156-1/fulltext
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4026578/
  119. https://ocrahope.org/for-patients/gynecologic-cancers/ovarian-cancer/ovarian-cancer-staging/
  120. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1471-0528.17511
  121. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17267835/
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5248494/
  123. https://www.brighamhealthonamission.org/2020/01/21/estrogen-therapy-effects-differ-by-age-among-women-who-have-had-ovaries-removed/
  124. https://www.droracle.ai/articles/202330/what-is-the-recommended-approach-to-initiate-hormone-replacement-therapy-hrt-in-patients-after-an-oophorectomy
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7475284/
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10226543/
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6585818/
  128. https://womensmentalhealth.org/posts/cbt-effective-menopausal-vasomotor-symptoms/
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4874921/
  130. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5079806/
  131. https://www.droracle.ai/articles/401398/strategies-to-optimize-bone-and-cardiovascular-health-in-bcra-carriers-who-have-had-a-bso
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10339092/
  133. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/12/16/1612
  134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352578925002887
  135. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jwh.2022.0175
  136. https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534%2822%2904193-X/fulltext
  137. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31918993/
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048891X24020656
  139. https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/ovarian-removal-to-prevent-ovarian-cancer-should-not-be-an-option-for-premenopausal-women-mayo-research-finds/
  140. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56950/
  141. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2810112
  142. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12023992/
  143. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMed020044
  144. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012464.pub2/full
  145. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/15/3/711
  146. https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/21/7/1066/69417/A-Simulation-Model-to-Predict-the-Impact-of
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4199586/
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9559251/
  149. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/OP.22.00069
  150. https://mdedge.com/obgyn/article/98543/gynecologic-cancer/high-rates-oophorectomy-documented-premenopausal-women
  151. https://mdedge.com/obgyn/article/107983/gynecology/study-finds-inappropriate-oophorectomy-time-hysterectomy
  152. https://blogs.the-hospitalist.org/content/data-dont-support-routine-bilateral-oophorectomy
  153. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3514564/
  154. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470204506708695
  155. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1247/
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10315033/
  157. https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534%2819%2931645-X/fulltext
  158. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/jco.2008.26.15_suppl.5531
  159. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18413372/
  160. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6690830/
  161. https://journals.lww.com/menopausejournal/fulltext/2022/01000/the_challenging_screen_detection_of_ovarian_cancer.12.aspx
  162. https://www.basser.org/brca/brca-women
  163. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics/brca-fact-sheet
  164. https://www.facingourrisk.org/info/hereditary-cancer-and-genetic-testing/hereditary-cancer-genes-and-risk/genes-by-name/brca2/risk-management
  165. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11512845/
  166. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38907139/
  167. https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-015-1597-y
  168. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048891X24024757
  169. https://www.med.upenn.edu/drapkinlab/assets/user-content/documents/pennington-etal-obstet-gynecolg-2025.pdf
  170. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.16424
  171. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/227179
  172. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11235484/
  173. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37030073/
  174. https://www.facingourrisk.org/info/risk-management-and-treatment/screening-and-risk-reduction/by-cancer-type/fallopian-ovarian-peritoneal-cancer/surgery-to-reduce-risk
  175. https://www.mayo.edu/research/clinical-trials/cls-20556912
  176. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2839003
  177. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39261253/
  178. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/oral-contraceptives-fact-sheet
  179. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2821%2900038-7/fulltext
  180. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/ovarian-cancer/risks-causes
  181. https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/prevention-wellness/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-ovarian-cancer-prevention
  182. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10023359/
  183. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/188/2/261/5165433
  184. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4077283/
  185. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0090825803008680
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.