Effect of hysterectomy on ovarian function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Ovarian Research
Yibao Huang1,2,3, Meng Wu3,1,2, Chuqing Wu3,1,2, Qingqing Zhu3,1,2, Tong Wu3,1,2, Xiaoran Zhu3,1,2, Mingfu Wu3,1,2, Shixuan Wang3,1,2
1Key Laboratory of Cancer Invasion and Metastasis, Ministry of Education, Wuhan, China
2National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrical and Gynecological Diseases, Wuhan, China
3National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrical and Gynecological Diseases, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

Tóm tắt

Abstract Background Hysterectomy is one of the most frequently gynecologic surgeries performed in premenopausal women. Many premenopausal patients are unwilling to undergo hysterectomy due to the probable decreased ovarian function. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of hysterectomy on ovarian function. Methods A meta-analysis has been reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. We mainly searched the Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases for eligible studies. The outcomes were the levels of common indicators of ovarian function, such as anti-müllerian hormone (AMH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), inhibin B, estradiol (E2) and luteinizing hormone (LH). The evidence was synthesized using meta-analysis via fixed or random effect model according to heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the potential sources of heterogeneity. Results The 14 included studies were conducted between 1989 and 2021, involving a total of 1,457 premenopausal women with 760 and 697 in the hysterectomy and control group, respectively. We found that hysterectomy damage ovarian function compared to the control group, with lower AMH level [Weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.56, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -0.72 to -0.39, P = 0.000], higher FSH levels (WMD = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.47 to 4.44, P = 0.000), lower inhibin B levels (WMD = -14.34, 95% CI: -24.69 to -3.99, P = 0.000) and higher LH levels (WMD = 4.07, 95% CI: 1.78 to 6.37, P = 0.000). In addition, E2 levels have a decreasing trend (WMD = -17.13, 95% CI: -35.10 to 0.85, P = 0.631) in the hysterectomy group but were not statistically significant. Conclusion Hysterectomy has a negative impact on ovarian function, especially in female patients over 40 years old. So, the older patients should closely monitor their ovarian function for early diagnosis and treatment of menopausal symptoms.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Du L, Wang Y, Li CR, Chen LJ, Cai JY, Xia ZR, et al. Rat BAT xenotransplantation recovers the fertility and metabolic health of PCOS mice. J Endocrinol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1530/JOE-20-0068.

Couzin-Frankel J. Reproductive biology. faulty DNA repair linked to ovarian aging in mice and humans. Science. 2013;339(6121):749. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.339.6121.749.

Zhang J, Chen Q, Du D, Wu T, Wen J, Wu M, et al. Can ovarian aging be delayed by pharmacological strategies? Aging (Albany NY). 2019;11(2):817–32. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.101784.

Hammer A, Rositch AF, Kahlert J, Gravitt PE, Blaakaer J, Sogaard M. Global epidemiology of hysterectomy: possible impact on gynecological cancer rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(1):23–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.019.

Hansdottir K, Gudmundsson JA. Trends in Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy Techniques for Nonmalignant Conditions in a Defined Population. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2018;83(2):198–202. https://doi.org/10.1159/000479026.

Jiang J, Ding T, Luo A, Lu Y, Ma D, Wang S. Comparison of surgical indications for hysterectomy by age and approach in 4653 Chinese women. Front Med. 2014;8(4):464–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-014-0338-y.

Radosa MP, Owsianowski Z, Mothes A, Weisheit A, Vorwergk J, Asskaryar FA, et al. Long-term risk of fibroid recurrence after laparoscopic myomectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;180:35–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.05.029.

Farquhar CM, Sadler L, Harvey SA, Stewart AW. The association of hysterectomy and menopause: a prospective cohort study. BJOG. 2005;112(7):956–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00696.x.

Siddle N, Sarrel P, Whitehead M. The effect of hysterectomy on the age at ovarian failure: identification of a subgroup of women with premature loss of ovarian function and literature review. Fertil Steril. 1987;47(1):94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)49942-5.

Chalmers C. Does hysterectomy in a premenopausal woman affect ovarian function? Med Hypotheses. 1996;46(6):573–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-9877(96)90134-6.

Chan C C W, Ng E H Y,Ho P C, Ovarian changes after abdominal hysterectomy for benign conditions. 2005.

Abdelazim IA, Abdelrazak KM, Elbiaa AAM, Farghali MM, Essam A, Zhurabekova G. Ovarian function and ovarian blood supply following premenopausal abdominal hysterectomy. Prz Menopauzalny. 2015;14(4):238–42.

Gökgözoğlu L, Islimye M, Topçu HO, Ozcan U. The effects of total abdominal hysterectomy on ovarian function - serial changes in serum anti-müllerian hormone, FSH and estradiol levels. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2014;23(5):821–5.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

Luchini C, Stubbs B, Solmi M, Veronese N. Assessing the quality of studies in meta-analyses: advantages and limitations of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. World Journal of Meta-Analysis. 2017;5(4):80–4. https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v5.i4.80.

Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al., The Newcastle–Ottawa SCALE (NOS) for assessing the quality of non randomised studies in meta-analyses. 2001.

van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Editorial board of the cochrane collaboration back review G, updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(12):1290–9.

Atabekoglu C, Taskin S, Kahraman K, Gemici A, Taskin EA, Ozmen B, et al. The effect of total abdominal hysterectomy on serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels: a pilot study. Climacteric. 2012;15(4):393–7.

Cho H-Y, Kyung MS. Comparison of postoperative ovarian reserve function following laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic myomectomy: a prospective comparative pilot study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(14):3077.

Czuczwar P, Stepniak A, Milart P, Paszkowski T, Wozniak S. Comparison of the influence of three fibroid treatment options: supracervical hysterectomy, ulipristal acetate and uterine artery embolization on ovarian reserve - an observational study. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11(1):45.

Trabuco EC, Moorman PG, Algeciras-Schimnich A, Weaver AL, Cliby WA. Association of ovary-sparing hysterectomy with ovarian reserve. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(5):819–27.

Wang H Y, Quan S, Zhang R L, Ye H Y, Bi Y L, Jiang Z M, et al., Comparison of serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels following hysterectomy and myomectomy for benign gynaecological conditions. 2013.

Chalmers C, Lindsay M, Usher D, Warner P, Evans D, Ferguson M. Hysterectomy and ovarian function: Levels of follicle stimulating hormone and incidence of menopausal symptoms are not affected by hysterectomy in women under age 45 years. Climacteric. 2002;5(4):366–73.

Halmesmäki K, Hurskainen R, Tiitinen A, Teperi J, Grenman S, Kivelä A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of hysterectomy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in the treatment of menorrhagia-effect on FSH levels and menopausal symptoms. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(2):378–82.

Hovsepian DM, Ratts VS, Rodriguez M, Huang JS, Aubuchon MG, Pilgram T K. A prospective comparison of the impact of uterine artery embolization, myomectomy, and hysterectomy on ovarian function. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(7):1111–5.

Kaiser R, Kusche M, Würz H. Hormone levels in women after hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1989;244(3):169–73.

Nahas E, Pontes A, Traiman P, Nahas Neto J, Dalben I, De Luca L. Inhibin B and ovarian function after total abdominal hysterectomy in women of reproductive age. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2003;17(2):125–31.

Qu X, Cheng Z, Yang W, Xu L, Dai H, Hu L. Controlled clinical trial assessing the effect of laparoscopic uterine arterial occlusion on ovarian reserve. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(1):47–52.

Xiangying H, Lili H, Yifu S. The effect of hysterectomy on ovarian blood supply and endocrine function. Climacteric. 2006;9(4):283–9.

Halmesmaki KH, Hurskainen RA, Cacciatore B, Tiitinen A, Paavonen JA. Effect of hysterectomy or LNG-IUS on serum inhibin B levels and ovarian blood flow. Maturitas. 2007;57(3):279–85.

Asgari Z, Tehranian A, Rouholamin S, Hosseini R, Sepidarkish M, Rezainejad M. Comparing surgical outcome and ovarian reserve after laparoscopic hysterectomy between two methods of with and without prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Cancer Res Ther. 2018;14(3):543–8.

Behnamfar F,Jabbary H, Evaluation of ovarian function after hysterectomy with or without salpingectomy: A feasible study. 2018.

Cho HY, Park ST, Kyung MS, Park SH. Assessment of ovarian reserve after hysterectomy: laparoscopic vs. non-laparoscopic surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;210:54–7.

Wang S,Gu J, The effect of prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy on ovarian reserve in patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy. 2021.

Moolhuijsen LME, Visser JA. Anti-mullerian hormone and ovarian reserve: update on assessing ovarian function. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(11):3361–73.

Broer SL, Broekmans FJ, Laven JS, Fauser BC. Anti-Mullerian hormone: ovarian reserve testing and its potential clinical implications. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(5):688–701. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu020.

Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, Broekmans F, Dilaver N, Fanchin R, et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-mullerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(3):370–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt062.

Kim C, Slaughter JC, Wang ET, Appiah D, Schreiner P, Leader B, et al. Anti-mullerian hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, antral follicle count, and risk of menopause within 5 years. Maturitas. 2017;102:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.04.018.

Wen J, Huang K, Du X, Zhang H, Ding T, Zhang C, et al. Can Inhibin B reflect ovarian reserve of healthy reproductive age women effectively? Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:626534.

Lee DY, Park HJ, Kim BG, Bae DS, Yoon BK, Choi D. Change in the ovarian environment after hysterectomy as assessed by ovarian arterial blood flow indices and serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;151(1):82–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.037.

Jiao X, Meng T, Zhai Y, Zhao L, Luo W, Liu P, et al. Ovarian reserve markers in premature ovarian insufficiency: within different clinical stages and different etiologies. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:601752.

Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Clewes J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N. Establishing the intercycle variability of three-dimensional ultrasonographic predictors of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(6):2126–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.028.

Liu KE, Greenblatt EM. Elevated day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone/luteinizing hormone ratio >or= 2 is associated with higher rates of cancellation in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(2):297–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.038.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Ovarian Research

Thông tin tác giả