Permanent Contraception: Salpingectomy vs Tubal Ligation. What’s Your Default Now?

Introduction

Permanent contraception is no longer simply a discussion about “tying the tubes.” For many clinicians, the operative default has shifted from interrupting the fallopian tubes to removing them. This change reflects a better understanding of the fallopian tube as an important site of origin for many high-grade serous pelvic cancers, together with increasing evidence that complete bilateral salpingectomy is feasible and has an acceptable perioperative safety profile in many contraceptive settings.

The relevant clinical question is not whether salpingectomy is superior for every patient or every operation. It is whether salpingectomy should be routinely discussed and, when appropriate, planned as the preferred surgical approach for a patient who has chosen permanent contraception. For many patients, the evidence supports that approach.

A responsible default is not a universal mandate. It means offering salpingectomy when permanent contraception is desired, explaining its expected contraceptive effectiveness and potential cancer-risk-reduction benefit, comparing it with tubal occlusion, partial salpingectomy, long-acting reversible contraception, and partner vasectomy, and assessing whether complete removal can be performed without disproportionate operative risk.

The decision must remain individualized. Adhesions, altered anatomy, active pelvic disease, hemodynamic instability, bleeding risk, surgical exposure, postpartum vascularity, available instrumentation, surgeon experience, and the patient’s informed preferences may all affect the safest procedure. A fallback plan should be discussed before surgery so that an unexpected intraoperative limitation does not result in an unconsented procedure or unnecessary escalation of risk.

Why the Default Has Changed

Traditional tubal ligation prevents pregnancy by interrupting tubal patency. Techniques may include clips, rings, bipolar coagulation, suture ligation, or partial removal of a tubal segment. Complete bilateral salpingectomy removes both fallopian tubes while preserving the ovaries.

The distinction has become clinically important because pathological and molecular findings support the distal fallopian tube, particularly the fimbrial epithelium, as a site of origin for many high-grade serous pelvic carcinomas. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and related precursor lesions helped shift the biological model away from an exclusively ovarian-surface origin.

Complete salpingectomy therefore has two potential advantages over tubal interruption. It provides permanent contraception by removing the structures required for natural transport of sperm and ova, and it removes tissue involved in the pathogenesis of many serous cancers.

ACOG and SGO support discussing or considering salpingectomy in appropriate average-risk patients undergoing hysterectomy, other pelvic surgery, or permanent contraception. These recommendations are based on biological plausibility, observational cancer-risk findings, and reassuring perioperative data. They are not based on randomized trials proving a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality.

The practical implication is that “tubal ligation” should not be used as an imprecise umbrella term during informed consent. Patients should understand whether the proposed procedure is tubal occlusion, partial salpingectomy, or complete bilateral salpingectomy.

Terminology for Clinician Counseling

Tubal ligation or tubal occlusion

Tubal ligation or occlusion refers to interruption of the fallopian tubes by mechanical, thermal, or surgical means. Depending on the technique, substantial portions of the tubes may remain in situ.

Partial salpingectomy

Partial salpingectomy removes a segment of each fallopian tube while leaving proximal and distal tubal tissue. Several procedures historically described as postpartum tubal ligations are partial salpingectomies.

Complete bilateral salpingectomy

Complete bilateral salpingectomy removes both fallopian tubes while preserving the ovaries. Because ovarian tissue is not removed, salpingectomy does not itself produce immediate surgical menopause. Short-term ovarian-reserve data are generally reassuring, although long-term menopause timing remains an evidence gap.

Opportunistic salpingectomy

Opportunistic salpingectomy refers to elective removal of the fallopian tubes during another indicated abdominal or pelvic operation, or in place of traditional tubal interruption when permanent contraception is desired. The objective is to add potential cancer-prevention value without changing the operative route or adding disproportionate morbidity.

Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy

Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy removes both fallopian tubes and both ovaries. It has different endocrine consequences from isolated salpingectomy and remains the best-established ovarian cancer risk-reduction operation for patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants and selected other high-risk variants under gene-specific guidance.

Contraceptive Effectiveness: Avoid False Precision

Permanent contraception is highly effective, but failure is not impossible. CDC estimates that approximately 0.5 pregnancies occur per 100 users of tubal surgery during the first year of typical use. This aggregate estimate includes multiple surgical methods and should not be interpreted as a method-specific failure rate for modern complete bilateral salpingectomy.

The U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization demonstrated that long-term pregnancy risk varies by procedure and by age at sterilization. Failures may occur years after tubal surgery. Mechanisms after traditional tubal procedures include incomplete occlusion, incorrect identification of anatomy, device failure, fistula formation, and recanalization.

Complete bilateral salpingectomy is expected to be at least as effective as traditional tubal sterilization because it removes the tubes rather than occluding or interrupting them. Long-term real-world contraceptive-failure data for complete salpingectomy are nevertheless less mature than those for older occlusive methods.

The most accurate counseling is that complete salpingectomy is expected to be extremely effective, but it should not be described as absolutely infallible. Rare pregnancies have been reported after procedures documented as bilateral salpingectomy, although some cases may involve residual tubal tissue, fistula formation, or incomplete prior removal.

A 2024 analysis of National Survey of Family Growth data reported self-reported pregnancy after sterilization in 2.9% to 5.2% of respondents across survey waves. These figures should not be presented as complete-salpingectomy failure rates. The analysis relied on self-reported procedural and pregnancy histories and did not reliably distinguish modern complete salpingectomy from older tubal procedures.

Ectopic Pregnancy Counseling Remains Essential

Pregnancy after tubal surgery is uncommon, but it has important safety implications. CREST demonstrated that prior sterilization does not exclude ectopic pregnancy and that ectopic risk varies by method and age at sterilization.

The ectopic-pregnancy risk after complete bilateral salpingectomy is expected to be very low, but clinicians should avoid saying that it is impossible. Any patient with a positive pregnancy test after permanent contraception should undergo timely evaluation to determine pregnancy location.

Pelvic or abdominal pain, abnormal bleeding, syncope, presyncope, shoulder pain, or hemodynamic symptoms warrant urgent assessment. Counseling should emphasize that the rarity of pregnancy does not eliminate the need to evaluate a pregnancy promptly when it occurs.

Ovarian Cancer Risk Reduction: Strong Rationale, Clear Limits

The ovarian-cancer prevention rationale is a principal reason salpingectomy has gained momentum. Many high-grade serous pelvic carcinomas appear to arise from the distal fallopian tube. Removing the tubes while preserving the ovaries therefore offers a biologically plausible prevention strategy for average-risk patients who are already undergoing pelvic surgery or have chosen surgical permanent contraception.

The clinical evidence is supportive but not definitive. A Swedish nationwide study associated salpingectomy with lower subsequent ovarian cancer risk. A British Columbia cohort reported fewer serous and epithelial ovarian cancers than expected after opportunistic salpingectomy. A 2026 cohort analysis provided additional observational support for an association between opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy and lower serous ovarian carcinoma risk.

Not every observational analysis has identified a statistically supported association. An Ontario cohort did not find a statistically significant reduction, although the number of incident cancers was small and follow-up was shorter than in some other studies.

These findings should not be collapsed into a simple causal claim. Observational studies are vulnerable to confounding, selection effects, differences in surgical indications, incomplete procedural classification, and limited follow-up for a cancer that may develop decades later.

The appropriate clinical message is that salpingectomy may reduce epithelial ovarian cancer risk, particularly serous carcinoma, but it does not eliminate ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. It has not been proven in randomized trials to reduce ovarian cancer mortality in average-risk patients.

Traditional tubal ligation has also been associated with some reduction in ovarian cancer risk, but it leaves more tubal epithelium in place and does not provide the same biological completeness as removal of both tubes.

High-Risk Genetics: Do Not Substitute Salpingectomy for Established Risk-Reducing Surgery

Patients with BRCA1, BRCA2, or other pathogenic variants associated with substantial tubo-ovarian cancer risk require a different discussion from average-risk patients seeking contraception.

Salpingectomy may be relevant for contraception or as part of a staged strategy in a carefully counseled patient who declines or delays oophorectomy. It should not be represented as oncologically equivalent to risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

SGO identifies bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy after completion of childbearing as the best-established ovarian cancer risk-reduction strategy for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Removing only the tubes leaves residual ovarian and peritoneal cancer risk, and the long-term oncologic safety of salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy has not been established to the same degree.

Patients considering delayed oophorectomy should receive genetics and gynecologic-oncology consultation. Counseling should address gene-specific risk, recommended timing of established risk-reducing surgery, residual cancer risk, premature menopause, bone and cardiovascular health, sexual function, menopausal symptoms, and the potential role of menopausal hormone therapy when clinically appropriate.

Known pathogenic variants, a strong family history, or uncertain prior genetic testing should not be managed as routine permanent contraception without appropriate risk assessment.

Surgical Safety and Feasibility

The safety literature is generally reassuring. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing salpingectomy with tubal ligation found few clinically important differences in blood loss, hospital stay, wound infection, perioperative complications, or short-term ovarian-reserve markers.

The SALSTER randomized noninferiority trial found laparoscopic salpingectomy noninferior to tubal occlusion for complications through 8 weeks after surgery. Operative time was longer with salpingectomy. This distinction matters because comparable complication rates do not mean that operative burden is identical.

Cesarean-delivery data require additional nuance. Randomized trials indicate that salpingectomy can be performed during cesarean delivery, but completion rates and additional operative time vary. One trial found no clinically meaningful increase in procedure time, whereas another found lower bilateral completion rates and longer operative time with complete salpingectomy than with standard postpartum tubal ligation.

These differences likely reflect patient selection, vascularity, adhesions, body habitus, surgical technique, anatomy, exposure, and surgeon experience. Feasibility findings from one institution should not automatically be generalized to every obstetric setting.

Postpartum salpingectomy after vaginal delivery may also be feasible in experienced centers, but access, staffing, instrumentation, and local surgical pathways differ. A planned complete salpingectomy should not delay necessary obstetric care or be pursued at the expense of hemostasis and patient stability.

The safest default is not “salpingectomy at all costs.” It is to plan salpingectomy when appropriate and use the safest preoperatively agreed alternative if complete removal cannot be accomplished without disproportionate risk.

Ovarian Function and Menopause Timing

Because adnexal surgery may affect blood vessels supplying the ovary, ovarian function is a legitimate concern. Salpingectomy does not remove ovarian endocrine tissue, but dissection near the mesosalpinx could theoretically affect ovarian perfusion.

Short-term studies are generally reassuring. They commonly assess antimüllerian hormone, antral follicle count, follicle-stimulating hormone, or other surrogate markers rather than clinical outcomes extending to natural menopause.

A Cochrane review comparing hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy against hysterectomy alone found no clear evidence of an important difference in postoperative hormonal status, but the evidence quality was low and no included study reported ovarian cancer incidence.

A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis did not identify a significant short-term reduction in ovarian reserve following opportunistic salpingectomy. These findings support reassurance about short-term function but do not establish that salpingectomy has no effect on premature ovarian insufficiency or age at menopause over several decades.

Clinicians can reasonably explain that preserving the ovaries should avoid immediate surgical menopause and that short-term ovarian-reserve findings are reassuring. They should not promise that long-term menopause timing is unaffected.

Patient Selection

A potential candidate for bilateral salpingectomy is a patient with fallopian tubes who desires permanent contraception, understands that the procedure is intended to be irreversible, has considered reasonable alternatives, and can safely undergo the planned operation.

Salpingectomy may be particularly appropriate in the following settings:

Clinical setting	Why salpingectomy may fit	Main caution
Interval laparoscopic permanent contraception	The tubes are usually accessible, and the procedure can be planned electively	Requires an operating room, anesthesia, instrumentation, and appropriate surgical expertise
Cesarean delivery with desired permanent contraception	Avoids a separate procedure	Exposure, vascularity, bleeding, adhesions, stability, and additional operative time matter
Postpartum sterilization after vaginal delivery	May avoid a future interval operation	Access, completion rates, staffing, and institutional experience vary
Hysterectomy with ovarian preservation	Removes the tubes during an already indicated operation	Do not change an otherwise safer surgical route solely to complete salpingectomy
Other benign pelvic surgery	May add preventive value when the tubes are readily accessible	Avoid additional dissection when anatomy or clinical conditions make removal unsafe

Traditional tubal ligation or partial salpingectomy remains appropriate when complete salpingectomy cannot be performed safely, when exposure is limited, when the patient prefers another method, or when institutional resources do not support safe completion.

Contraindications and Individual Risk Assessment

The 2024 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria states that, in general, no medical condition absolutely restricts eligibility for permanent contraception, except known allergy or hypersensitivity to materials used during the procedure. This does not mean that every patient is an appropriate surgical candidate at every moment.

Risk assessment should consider:

• Anesthetic and cardiopulmonary risk

• Bleeding disorders, anticoagulant therapy, or active hemorrhage

• Hemodynamic instability

• Active infection

• Prior abdominal or pelvic surgery

• Adhesions or distorted anatomy

• Pregnancy-related clinical status

• Surgical exposure and anticipated operative complexity

• Available expertise, staffing, and instrumentation

When tubal surgery poses increased risk, a long-acting reversible contraceptive or partner vasectomy may better match the patient’s goals.

Permanent contraception does not protect against sexually transmitted infections or HIV. Condom counseling and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis should be addressed when clinically relevant.

Counseling: The Ethical Center of the Procedure

Permanent contraception has a complex history that includes coercive, discriminatory, and nonconsensual sterilization. Contemporary counseling must protect both access and autonomy.

Clinicians should not direct patients toward sterilization because of disability, socioeconomic status, race, medical complexity, parity, or assumptions about parenting capacity. They should also avoid denying requested permanent contraception solely because of age, nulliparity, relationship status, or an unsupported assumption that the patient will later regret the decision.

Younger age is associated with higher reported regret in several studies, but age alone is not a contraindication. It should prompt careful counseling rather than paternalistic refusal. The same principle applies to nulliparity.

All permanent-contraception procedures should be described as intended to be irreversible. Surgical reversal may be attempted after some tubal-occlusion procedures, but success varies with the original method, remaining tubal length, age, reproductive factors, and surgical expertise. Reversal should not be promised. After complete bilateral salpingectomy, future pregnancy generally requires in vitro fertilization.

High-quality counseling should address:

• The patient’s reproductive goals and certainty about permanence

• Complete salpingectomy versus tubal occlusion or partial salpingectomy

• Long-acting reversible contraception

• Partner vasectomy

• Operative and anesthesia risks

• The possibility of procedural failure

• Ectopic-pregnancy precautions if pregnancy occurs

• The potential, but not guaranteed, ovarian cancer risk-reduction benefit

• The fact that cancer risk is reduced rather than eliminated

• STI and HIV prevention

• The agreed fallback procedure if complete salpingectomy is unsafe

The consent process should clearly distinguish the patient’s request for permanent contraception from consent for one specific surgical technique. A patient may consent to salpingectomy but decline partial salpingectomy or occlusion if complete removal is not possible. Conversely, the patient may authorize a named alternative to avoid leaving surgery without the desired contraception.

Consent and Access Barriers

Operational requirements can determine whether a patient receives desired permanent contraception. Medicaid-funded sterilization in the United States is subject to federal consent requirements.

Federal financial participation generally requires that the individual be at least 21 years old when consent is obtained, be considered mentally competent under the regulation, and voluntarily provide informed consent using the required process. At least 30 but not more than 180 days must generally pass between consent and sterilization.

Limited exceptions permit the procedure at least 72 hours after consent in cases of premature delivery or emergency abdominal surgery when the regulatory conditions are satisfied. For premature delivery, consent must have been obtained at least 30 days before the expected date of delivery.

The applicable consent form requires designated signatures and certifications. A missed form, incomplete signature, expired consent, or incorrectly calculated interval may prevent a desired postpartum procedure.

Clinicians should address consent early during prenatal care when postpartum permanent contraception is being considered. Federal requirements do not eliminate the need to confirm state, payer, institutional, and facility-specific rules.

Access barriers may include operating-room availability, anesthesia staffing, religiously affiliated institutional restrictions, reimbursement, limited surgical training, transportation, delayed referral, and geographic differences in care. These barriers should not be mistaken for a change in the patient’s informed preference.

FDA and Device Considerations: Essure as a Legacy Issue

Essure hysteroscopic sterilization is no longer available for implantation in the United States. The FDA states that all unused units should have been returned to the manufacturer by December 31, 2019.

Patients who have been using Essure successfully can generally continue relying on the device. Routine removal is not recommended solely because Essure is no longer marketed.

Patients with persistent pain, abnormal bleeding, suspected migration, perforation, hypersensitivity concerns, or other potentially device-related symptoms should receive an individualized evaluation. Removal may require surgery, sometimes with general anesthesia, and has its own risks.

Essure should therefore be treated as a legacy-device management issue, not as a currently available permanent-contraception option.

Practical Approach for Clinicians

A clinically balanced counseling statement is:

“For patients who want permanent contraception, I routinely discuss removing both fallopian tubes rather than simply blocking them. Complete tube removal is expected to be extremely effective and may reduce future ovarian cancer risk. It does not remove the ovaries or cause immediate surgical menopause, but long-term menopause timing has not been fully established. It also does not eliminate all ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer risk. If removing both tubes completely cannot be done safely, we will follow the alternative plan you approved before surgery.”

Before surgery, documentation should identify the patient’s desire for permanent contraception, the planned procedure, alternatives discussed, anticipated ovarian preservation, operative risks, applicable consent requirements, STI counseling when relevant, and the agreed fallback plan.

After surgery, documentation should specify whether both tubes were completely removed, whether the procedure was partial or complete, whether an alternative technique was used, whether pathology specimens were submitted, and whether intraoperative findings altered the plan.

Table 1. Salpingectomy Versus Tubal Ligation for Permanent Contraception

Clinical issue	Complete bilateral salpingectomy	Tubal ligation, occlusion, or partial salpingectomy
Mechanism	Removes both fallopian tubes	Clips, bands, cauterizes, ligates, interrupts, or partially removes the tubes
Expected contraceptive durability	Expected to be extremely effective; long-term method-specific failure data remain limited	Highly effective, but failure varies by method and age
Reversibility	Not surgically reversible in usual practice; IVF is generally required for future pregnancy	Intended to be irreversible; reversal may sometimes be attempted, but success is variable
Ovarian cancer implication	Observationally associated with reduced risk; risk is not eliminated	Some risk reduction has been reported, but more tubal epithelium remains
Ovarian function	Ovaries are preserved; short-term reserve data are reassuring; long-term menopause timing remains uncertain	Ovaries are preserved; ovarian effects vary by technique but are generally limited
Operative considerations	May require additional dissection and operative time	Often shorter and technically familiar
Preferred role	Increasingly favored for discussion and planning when feasible, safe, and desired	Appropriate when salpingectomy is unsafe, unavailable, not feasible, or not preferred
Future pregnancy warning	Pregnancy is rare but possible; evaluate location promptly	Pregnancy is uncommon but possible; ectopic risk varies by method

Table 2. Counseling and Documentation Checklist

Domain	Key counseling point	Documentation
Permanence	The procedure is intended to be irreversible	Patient desires permanent contraception
Alternatives	IUD, implant, vasectomy, continued reversible contraception, or no procedure remain options	Alternatives reviewed
Procedure	Salpingectomy removes the tubes; ligation or occlusion interrupts them	Planned method specified
Effectiveness	Highly effective, but no method should be called infallible	Failure counseling documented
Cancer risk	Risk may be reduced but is not eliminated	Benefit framed as potential and observationally supported
Ovarian function	Ovaries remain; immediate surgical menopause is not expected; long-term menopause timing is uncertain	Ovarian preservation discussed
Fallback plan	Use only the safest alternative authorized by the patient	Alternative procedure documented
STI prevention	No protection against STIs or HIV	Condom or PrEP counseling when relevant
Pregnancy warning	Any pregnancy requires timely assessment for location	Ectopic precautions reviewed
Consent requirements	Federal, state, payer, and institutional rules may apply	Form and timing confirmed

Limitations of the Evidence

Several limitations should temper clinical enthusiasm.

First, ovarian cancer prevention data are predominantly observational. The biological rationale is strong, but randomized evidence demonstrating reduced ovarian cancer incidence or mortality in average-risk patients is unavailable.

Second, the latency of ovarian cancer is long. Even large contemporary cohorts may require decades of follow-up before the magnitude of any preventive benefit can be estimated reliably.

Third, long-term contraceptive-failure data for complete bilateral salpingectomy are less mature than data for older occlusive methods. Salpingectomy is expected to be extremely effective, but comparative superiority should not be presented as established.

Fourth, ovarian-function studies frequently rely on short-term surrogate markers. Reassuring antimüllerian hormone or antral follicle count findings do not prove that age at menopause is unchanged.

Fifth, perioperative studies may not generalize across interval surgery, cesarean delivery, vaginal postpartum procedures, hysterectomy, and other benign pelvic operations. Completion and operative-time findings depend on anatomy, technique, setting, and surgical expertise.

Finally, real-world access is uneven. Consent requirements, reimbursement, scheduling, staffing, institutional policy, geography, and surgeon training can determine whether a patient receives the procedure selected during counseling.

Future Directions

Long-term surveillance should clarify contraceptive failure after complete salpingectomy, ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer incidence, cancer-specific mortality, overall survival, premature ovarian insufficiency, and age at menopause.

Additional research should evaluate patient-reported outcomes, including satisfaction, recovery, sexual health, menstrual experience, quality of life, and regret. These outcomes may be particularly important when comparing procedures that are similarly effective but differ in operative burden and reversibility options.

Implementation research is also needed in postpartum and resource-limited settings. Increasing access should not compromise informed consent, operative safety, or reproductive autonomy.

For patients with hereditary cancer susceptibility, prospective studies of salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy remain important. Until mature oncologic outcome data establish an alternative standard, salpingectomy alone should not replace gene-appropriate risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2019). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 774: Opportunistic salpingectomy as a strategy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 133(4), e279-e284. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003164. PMID: 30913199.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2024). Permanent contraception: Ethical issues and considerations. ACOG Committee Statement No. 8. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 143(2), e31-e39. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005474. PMID: 38237165.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Appendix I: Permanent contraception. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2026.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Permanent contraception. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2026.

Curtis, K. M., Nguyen, A. T., Tepper, N. K., et al. (2024). U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2024. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 73(3), 1-77. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr7303a1. PMID: 39106301.

Falconer, H., Yin, L., Grönberg, H., & Altman, D. (2015). Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: A nationwide population-based study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 107(2), dju410. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju410. PMID: 25628372.

Food and Drug Administration. (2026). Information for patients and health care providers: Essure. Retrieved July 13, 2026.

Garcia, C., Moskowitz, O. M., Chisholm, C. A., Duska, L. R., Warren, A. L., Lyons, G. R., & Pettit, K. E. (2018). Salpingectomy compared with tubal ligation at cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 132(1), 29-34. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002674. PMID: 29889755.

Gelderblom, M. E., Int Hout, J., Dagovic, L., Hermens, R. P. M. G., Piek, J. M. J., & de Hullu, J. A. (2022). The effect of opportunistic salpingectomy for primary prevention of ovarian cancer on ovarian reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas, 166, 21-34. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.08.002. PMID: 36030627.

Giannakeas, V., Murji, A., Lipscombe, L. L., Narod, S. A., & Kotsopoulos, J. (2023). Salpingectomy and the risk of ovarian cancer in Ontario. JAMA Network Open, 6(8), e2327198. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.27198. PMID: 37566421.

Hanley, G. E., Pearce, C. L., Talhouk, A., et al. (2022). Outcomes from opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. JAMA Network Open, 5(2), e2147343. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.47343. PMID: 35138400.

Hillis, S. D., Marchbanks, P. A., Tylor, L. R., & Peterson, H. B. (1999). Poststerilization regret: Findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 93(6), 889-895. PMID: 10362150.

Kahn, R. M., Gordhandas, S., Maddy, B. P., et al. (2023). Salpingectomy for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer: A systematic review. JAMA Surgery, 158(11), 1204-1211. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4164. PMID: 37672283.

Mills, K., Marchand, G., Sainz, K., et al. (2021). Salpingectomy versus tubal ligation for sterilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 224(3), 258-265.e4. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.09.011. PMID: 32941790.

Nguyen, A. T., Curtis, K. M., Tepper, N. K., et al. (2024). U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 73(4), 1-126. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr7304a1. PMID: 39106314.

Peterson, H. B., Xia, Z., Hughes, J. M., Wilcox, L. S., Tylor, L. R., & Trussell, J. (1996). The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: Findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 174(4), 1161-1170. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70658-0. PMID: 8623843.

Peterson, H. B., Xia, Z., Hughes, J. M., Wilcox, L. S., Tylor, L. R., & Trussell, J. (1997). The risk of ectopic pregnancy after tubal sterilization. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(11), 762-767. doi:10.1056/NEJM199703133361104. PMID: 9052654.

Schwarz, E. B., Chiang, A. Y., Lewis, C. A., Gariepy, A. M., & Reeves, M. F. (2024). Pregnancy after tubal sterilization in the United States, 2002 to 2015. NEJM Evidence, 3(9), EVIDoa2400023. doi:10.1056/EVIDoa2400023. PMID: 39189861.

Society of Gynecologic Oncology. (2013). SGO clinical practice statement: Salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Retrieved July 13, 2026.

Sowamber, R., Mei, A. J., Kaur, P., et al. (2026). Serous ovarian cancer following opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy. JAMA Network Open, 9(2), e2557267. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.57267. PMID: 41627818.

Strandell, A., Magarakis, L., Sundfeldt, K., Pålsson, M., Liv, P., & Idahl, A. (2024). Salpingectomy versus tubal occlusion in laparoscopic sterilization (SALSTER): A national register-based randomized noninferiority trial. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 45, 101026. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101026. PMID: 39974774.

Subramaniam, A., Blanchard, C. T., Erickson, B. K., Szychowski, J. M., Leath, C. A., Biggio, J. R., & Huh, W. K. (2018). Feasibility of complete salpingectomy compared with standard postpartum tubal ligation at cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 132(1), 20-27. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002646. PMID: 29889762.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. (2026). 42 CFR § 441.253: Sterilization of a mentally competent individual aged 21 or older. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved July 13, 2026.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. (2026). 42 CFR § 441.258: Consent form requirements. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved July 13, 2026.

van Lieshout, L. A. M., Steenbeek, M. P., De Hullu, J. A., et al. (2019). Hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy versus hysterectomy alone. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019(8), CD012858. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012858.pub2. PMID: 31456223.

Wagar, M. K., et al. (2021). Postpartum salpingectomy compared with standard tubal ligation after vaginal delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 137(3), 514-520. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004285. PMID: 33595245.