Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prophylactic Surgery for Benign Gynecologic Pathologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Prophylactic Surgery

  • 353 Accesses

Abstract

Prophylactic surgery is not only related to minimize the cancer risk but unitedly aims to prevent any disease or undesirable consequences. Benign gynecologic pathologies related prophylactic surgery involves prophylactic salpingectomy, anti-prolapses surgery, and prophylactic cerclage. Gynecologist should discuss prophylactic salpingectomy with their patients before female sterilization, infertility surgery, and surely hysterectomies for benign indications. Women with asymptomatic prolapses, symptomatic prolapses without any findings and who have risk factors for pelvic organ prolapses are expected to benefit from prophylactic prolapses surgery with hysterectomy. History of cervical insufficiency and history of prior cerclage require prophylactic cerclage for expectant mothers and laparoscopic approaches ought to be considered with high success rates and low risk especially in pre-conceptional period in appropriate patients. Prophylactic surgery has additional risks and does not guarantee healthy period for lifetime. It should be discussed with patients and families before the surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 774: opportunistic salpingectomy as a strategy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e279–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruckner HW, Cohen CJ, Goldberg JD, et al. Cisplatin regimens and improved prognosis of patients with poorly differentiated ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;145:653.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vogl SE, Pagano M, Kaplan BH, et al. Cis-platin based combination chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. High overall response rate with curative potential only in women with small tumor burdens. Cancer. 1983;51:2024.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bristow RE, Chang J, Ziogas A, et al. High-volume ovarian cancer care: survival impact and disparities in access for advanced-stage disease. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132:403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A, et al. Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:161–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kuhn E, Kurman RJ, Vang R, et al. TP53 mutations in serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and concurrent pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma–evidence supporting the clonal relationship of the two lesions. J Pathol. 2012;226:421–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rice MS, Hankinson SE, Tworoger SS. Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, unilateral oophorectomy, and risk of ovarian cancer in the Nurses’ Health Studies. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:192–8.e3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Falconer H, Yin L, Gronberg H, Altman D. Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(2):dju410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gaitskell K, Coffey K, Green J, et al. Tubal ligation and incidence of 26 site-specific cancers in the million women study. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:1033.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Yoon SH, Kim SN, Shim SH, et al. Bilateral salpingectomy can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer in the general population: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2016;55:38–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Garavaglia E, Sigismondi C, Ferrari S, et al. The origin of endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer from uterine neoplastic lesions. Med Hypotheses. 2018;110:80–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Powell CB, Alabaster A, Simmons S, et al. Salpingectomy for sterilization: change in practice in a large integrated health care system, 2011-2016. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:961.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Creinin MD, Zite N. Female tubal sterilization: the time has come to routinely consider removal. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zeyneloglu HB, Arici A, Olive DL. Adverse effects of hydrosalpinx on pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998;70:492.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Camus E, Poncelet C, Aucouturier JS, et al. Hydrosalpinx and fertilization in vitro-embryo transfer: abstention or salpingectomy? Abstention, salpingectomy or salpingostomy? Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2001;29:466.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cadish LA, Shepherd JP, Barber EL, et al. Risks and benefits of opportunistic salpingectomy during vaginal hysterectomy: a decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:603.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rocca WA, Grossardt BR, de Andrade M, et al. Survival patterns after oophorectomy in premenopausal women: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:821.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Parker WH, Broder MS, Chang E, et al. Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the nurses’ health study. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1027–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Mytton J, Evison F, Chilton PJ, et al. Removal of all ovarian tissue versus conserving ovarian tissue at time of hysterectomy in premenopausal patients with benign disease: study using routine data and data linkage. BMJ. 2017;356:j372.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Parker WH, Broder MS, Liu Z, et al. Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(2):219–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Parker WH. Bilateral oophorectomy versus ovarian conservation: effects on long-term women’s health. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:161–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Catenacci M, Sastry S, Falcone T. Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;52:351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wiesenfeld HC, Sweet RL. Progress in the management of tuboovarian abscesses. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1993;36:433.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Salim R, Gray G, Chappatte OA. The feasibility and efficacy of laparoscope oophorectomy in the management of pelvic pain after hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27:718.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dekel A, Efrat Z, Orvieto R, et al. The residual ovary syndrome: a 20-year experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;68:159.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, Woo MM, et al. Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention. Ovarian Cancer Research Program of British Columbia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:471.e1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hanley GE, McAlpine JN, Pearce CL, et al. The performance and safety of bilateral salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:270.e1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 208: benefits and risks of sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e194–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Findley AD, Siedhoff MT, Hobbs KA, et al. Short-term effects of salpingectomy during laparoscopic hysterectomy on ovarian reserve: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1704–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sahin C, Taylan E, Akdemir A, et al. The impact of salpingectomy and single-dose systemic methotrexate treatments on ovarian reserve in ectopic pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:150–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Simsek D, Akdemir A, Ergenoglu M, et al. Effect of opportunistic salpingectomy on ovarian reserve in patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;1:191–9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Venturella R, Lico D, Borelli M, et al. 3 to 5 years later: long-term effects of prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy on ovarian function. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24:145–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Asgari Z, Tehranian A, Rouholamin S, et al. Comparing surgical outcome and ovarian reserve after laparoscopic hysterectomy between two methods of with and without prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Can Res Ther. 2018;14:543–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ganer Herman H, Gluck O, Keidar R, et al. Ovarian reserve following cesarean section with salpingectomy vs tubal ligation: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:472.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shinar S, Blecher Y, Alpern S, et al. Total bilateral salpingectomy versus partial bilateral salpingectomy for permanent sterilization during cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295:1185–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Subramaniam A, Blanchard CT, Erickson BK, et al. Feasibility of complete salpingectomy compared with standard postpartum tubal ligation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:20–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Garcia C, Moskowitz OM, Chisholm CA, et al. Salpingectomy compared with tubal ligation at cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:29–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Danis RB, Della Badia CR, Richard SD. Postpartum permanent sterilization: could bilateral salpingectomy replace bilateral tubal ligation? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:928–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, Woo MM, et al. Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:471.E1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Westberg J, Scott F, Creinin MD. Safety outcomes of female sterilization by salpingectomy and tubal occlusion. Contraception. 2017;95(5):505–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Antosh DD, High R, Brown HW, et al. Feasibility of prophylactic salpingectomy during vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:605.e1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kwon JS, McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, et al. Costs and benefits of opportunistic salpingectomy as an ovarian cancer prevention strategy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chene G, Rahimi K, Mes-Masson AM, et al. Surgical implications of the potential new tubal pathway for ovarian carcinogenesis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:153–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cass I, Holschneider C, Datta N, et al. BRCA-mutation-associated fallopian tube carcinoma: a distinct clinical phenotype? Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:1327–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, et al. Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988–1990. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:549–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, et al. An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:299–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Altman D, Falconer C, Cnattingius S, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery following hysterectomy on benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:572.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:1717.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V, et al. True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:679.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lykke R, Blaakær J, Ottesen B, et al. Incidence of pelvic organ prolapse repair subsequent to hysterectomy: a comparison between radical hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology and the American Urogynecologic Society. Practice bulletin no. 176: pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:e56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines on the prevention of apical prolapse at the time of benign hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hoffman MS, Lynch CM, Nackley A. Ureteral obstruction from high McCall’s culdeplasty. J Gynecol Surg. 2000;16:119–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rardin CR, Erekson EA, Sung VW, et al. Uterosacral colpopexy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of laparoscopic and vaginal approaches. J Reprod Med. 2009;54:273–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Chene G, Tardieu AS, Savary D, et al. Anatomical and functional results of McCall culdoplasty in the prevention of enteroceles and vaginal vault prolapse after vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(7):1007–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Gencdal S, Demirel E, Soyman Z, et al. Prophylactic McCall culdoplasty by a vaginal approach during mini-laparoscopic hysterectomy. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:8047924.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Davenport ER, Vennart RM. Prophylactic laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(7 Suppl):S88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Gustilo-Ashby AM, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, et al. The incidence of ureteral obstruction and the value of intraoperative cystoscopy during vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1478.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 142: cerclage for the management of cervical insufficiency. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:372–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Iams JD, Johnson FF, Sonek J, et al. Cervical competence as a continuum: a study of ultrasonographic cervical length and obstetric performance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:1097–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Saccone G, Ciardulli A, Xodo S. Cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies with short cervical length: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(8):1535–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Sneider K, Christiansen OB, Sundtoft IB. Recurrence rates after abdominal and vaginal cerclages in women with cervical insufficiency: a validated cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(4):859–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Treadwell MC, Bronsteen RA, Bottoms SF. Prognostic factors and complication rates for cervical cerclage: a review of 482 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165:555–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Althuisius S, Dekker G, Hummel P, et al. Cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial (CIPRACT): effect of therapeutic cerclage with bed rest vs. bed rest only on cervical length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;20:163–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wolfe L, DePasquale S, Adair CD, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic placement of transabdominal cerclage during pregnancy. Am J Perinatol. 2008;25:653–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Groom K, Jones BA, Edmonds K, et al. Preconception transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1):230–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Dawood F, Farquharson RG. Transabdominal cerclage: preconceptual versus first trimester insertion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;199:27–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Vousden NJ, Carter J, Seed PT, et al. What is the impact of preconception abdominal cerclage on fertility: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96:543–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Berghella V, Szychowski JM, Owen J, et al. Suture type and ultrasound-indicated cerclage efficacy. Vaginal ultrasound trial consortium. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:2287–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Davis G, Berghella V, Talucci M, et al. Patients with a prior failed transvaginal cerclage: a comparison of obstetric outcomes with either transabdominal or trans-vaginal cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:836–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Romero R, Espinoza J, Erez O, et al. The role of cervical cerclage in obstetric practice: can the patient who could benefit from this procedure be identified? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Arı SA, Akdemir A, Sendag F. Transabdominal cervical cerclage. In: Nezhat C, Kavic M, Lanzafame R, Lindsay M, Polk T, editors. Non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy. Berlin: Springer; 2019. p. 355–60.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  76. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Elective coincidental appendectomy: ACOG committee opinion 323. Washington, DC: The College; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, et al. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132:910–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Snyder TE, Selanders JR. Incidental appendectomy—yes or no? A retrospective case study and review of the literature. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998;6:30–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Lal AK, Weaver AL, Hopkins MR, et al. Laparoscopic appendectomy in women without identifiable pathology undergoing laparoscopy for chronic pelvic pain. JSLS. 2013;17(1):82–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Wie HJ, Lee JH, Kyung MS, et al. Is incidental appendectomy necessary in women with ovarian endometrioma? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48:107–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Peters A, Mansuria SM. The role of appendectomy at the time of laparoscopic surgery for benign gynecologic conditions. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30(4):237–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Salom EM, Schey D, Penalver M, et al. The safety of incidental appendectomy at the time of abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1563–7; discussion 1567–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Tranmer BI, Graham AM, Sterns EE. Incidental appendectomy?—yes. Can J Surg. 1981;24:191–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Voitk AJ, Lowry JB. Is incidental appendectomy a safe practice? Can J Surg. 1988;31:448–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Chiarugi M, Buccianti P, Decanini L, et al. What you see is not what you get. A plea to remove a ‘normal’ appendix during diagnostic laparoscopy. Acta Chir Belg. 2001;101:243–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Nezhat C, Nezhat F. Incidental appendectomy during videolaseroscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165:559–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Pearce C, Torres C, Stallings S, et al. Elective appendectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial [published correction appears in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;201(2):214]. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(5):491.e1–e4915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Lee JH, Choi JS, Jeon SW, et al. Laparoscopic incidental appendectomy during laparoscopic surgery for ovarian endometrioma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(1):28.e1–e285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Choksuwattanasakul M. Incidental appendectomy during mini incision post-partum sterilization (Chokchai technique): a prospective cross-sectional study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(12):1863–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Israel SL, Roitman HB. Cesarean section and prophylactic appendectomy: the passing of a prejudice. Obstet Gynecol. 1957;10:102–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Tungphaisal S, Chandeying V, Pinjaroen S, et al. Incidental appendectomy at cesarean section: a prospective study. J Med Assoc Thail. 1989;72:633–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Parsons AK, Sauer MV, Parsons MT, et al. Appendectomy at cesarean section: a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;68:479–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mrs. Sandie Elisme for language editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Menemen State Hospital, Izmir, Turkey

    Sabahattin Anil Ari

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

    Ali Akdemir

Authors
  1. Sabahattin Anil Ari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Akdemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Akdemir .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Section of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Izmir Kâtip Çelebi University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey

    Osman Nuri Dilek

  2. Department of Surgery, Section for Surgical Research, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Steiermark, Austria

    Selman Uranues

  3. Department of Surgery, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA

    Rifat Latifi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ari, S.A., Akdemir, A. (2021). Prophylactic Surgery for Benign Gynecologic Pathologies. In: Dilek, O.N., Uranues, S., Latifi, R. (eds) Prophylactic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66853-2_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66853-2_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66852-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66853-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation