The Optimal Age for Oophorectomy in Women with Benign Conditions: A Narrative Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
2.2. Inclusion Criteria
- Peer-reviewed studies evaluating age-stratified outcomes of oophorectomy and ovarian conservation.
- Randomized controlled trials, retrospective cohort studies, and meta-analyses focusing on cardiovascular, metabolic, and oncological risks associated with ovarian removal.
- Research assessing hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) use post-oophorectomy and its impact on bone density and long-term survival.
2.3. Exclusion Criteria
- Studies failing to stratify findings by age, risk level, or HRT usage.
- Case reports, commentaries, and studies with insufficient statistical power or methodological limitations.
- Articles focusing exclusively on malignant ovarian conditions rather than elective oophorectomy for benign indications.
2.4. Study Selection
3. Results
3.1. Overview of Oophorectomy and Health Outcomes
- Cardiovascular disease
- Cognitive disorders
- Bones
- Mortality rates
- Quality of Life and Metabolic Consequences
3.2. Factors Influencing Oophorectomy Decisions
3.2.1. Age-Based Stratification in Oophorectomy Decisions
Oophorectomy Rates by Age
Mortality Risk Based on Age at Surgery
Impact of Estrogen Therapy on Survival Rates
3.2.2. Low- and High-Risk Populations
Ovarian Conservation Versus Elective Oophorectomy
Stratification of Risk Groups
Surgical Alternatives to Oophorectomy
Salpingectomy with Delayed Oophorectomy: A Safer Alternative?
Oophorectomy in Endometriosis Patients
Surgeon Preference as a Determinant for Oophorectomy
Chronic Pelvic Pain and Conservative Management Before Hysterectomy
3.3. Trends and Concerns over Oophorectomy Practices
Decline in Oophorectomy Rates: Global and Regional Trends
3.4. Recommendations for Oophorectomy Decisions
- Step 1: Is there a strong indication for oophorectomy? Yes → proceed with surgical removal. No → continue risk evaluation.
- Step 2: Is the patient under 45 without a genetic predisposition? Yes → strong recommendation for ovarian conservation due to cardiovascular and metabolic risks. No → evaluate cancer risk and hormone therapy eligibility.
- Step 3: Is hormone replacement therapy (HRT) required post-oophorectomy? Yes → immediate HRT initiation to prevent premature menopause complications. No → consider alternative hormone management strategies.
4. Discussion
4.1. Balancing Ovarian Conservation and Elective Oophorectomy
4.2. Limitations in the Existing Literature
4.3. Future Research Directions
4.3.1. Advancing Evidence-Based Surgical Guidelines
4.3.2. Personalized Medicine and Risk-Stratification Tools
4.3.3. Evaluating Hormone-Placement Therapy Strategies
4.3.4. Exploring Alternative Approaches to Oophorectomy
4.3.5. Policy Implementation
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Asfour, V.; Jakes, A.D.; McMicking, J.; Szetho, W.Z.; Sayasneh, A.; Diab, Y.; Mascarenhas, L.; Rymer, J. Oophorectomy or ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2022, 24, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gootzen, T.; Steenbeek, M.; van Bommel, M.; IntHout, J.; Kets, C.; Hermens, R.; de Hullu, J. Risk-reducing salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy to prevent ovarian cancer in women with an increased inherited risk: Insights into an alternative strategy. Fam. Cancer 2024, 23, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Ko, S.-H.; Kim, H.-S. Menopause-Associated Lipid Metabolic Disorders and Foods Beneficial for Postmenopausal Women. Nutrients 2020, 12, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Hernandez-Zepeda, M.L.; Munro, E.G.; Caughey, A.B.; Bruegl, A.S. Ovarian preservation compared to oophorectomy in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial Cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 2023, 173, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huo, N.; Smith, C.Y.; Rocca, L.G.; Rocca, W.A.; Mielke, M.M. Risk of de novo cancer after premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 226, 539.e1–539.e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Erekson, E.A.; Martin, D.K.; Ratner, E.S. Oophorectomy. Menopause 2013, 20, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Sharma, U.; Schumann, S.A. Ovary-sparing hysterectomy: Is it right for your patient? J. Fam. Pract. 2009, 58, 478–480. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Ryczkowska, K.; Adach, W.; Janikowski, K.; Banach, M.; Bielecka-Dabrowa, A. Menopause and women’s cardiovascular health: Is it really an obvious relationship? Arch. Med. Sci. 2022, 19, 458–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Bove, R.; Secor, E.; Chibnik, L.B.; Barnes, L.L.; Schneider, J.A.; Bennett, D.A.; De Jager, P.L. Age at surgical menopause influences cognitive decline and Alzheimer pathology in older women. Neurology 2014, 82, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, A.A.; Abdelazim, I.A.; Hagras, A. The risk of Parkinson’s disease in women who underwent hysterectomy before the age of menopause. Prz. Menopauzalny 2022, 21, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Jiang, H.; Robinson, D.L.; Lee, P.V.S.; Krejany, E.O.; Yates, C.J.; Hickey, M.; Wark, J.D. Loss of bone density and bone strength following premenopausal risk–reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: A prospective controlled study (WHAM Study). Osteoporos. Int. 2021, 32, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tuesley, K.M.; Protani, M.M.; Webb, P.M.; Dixon-Suen, S.C.; Wilson, L.F.; Stewart, L.M.; Jordan, S.J. Hysterectomy with and without oophorectomy and all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 223, 723.e1–723.e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blümel, J.E.; Chedraui, P.; Vallejo, M.S.; Escalante, C.; Gómez-Tabares, G.; Monterrosa-Castro, Á.; Ñañez, M.; Ojeda, E.; Rey, C.; Vidal, D.R.; et al. Impact of hysterectomy without oophorectomy on the health of postmenopausal women: Assessment of physical, psychological, and cognitive factors. Maturitas 2025, 196, 108229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Erekson, E.A.; Martin, D.K.; Zhu, K.; Ciarleglio, M.M.; Patel, D.A.; Guess, M.K.; Ratner, E.S. Sexual Function in Older Women After Oophorectomy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012, 120, 833–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Duralde, E.R.; Sobel, T.H.; Manson, J.E. Management of perimenopausal and menopausal symptoms. BMJ 2023, 382, e072612, Erratum in BMJ 2023, 382, 1977; Erratum in BMJ 2023, 383, 2636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Plusquin, C.; Fastrez, M.; Vandromme, J.; Rozenberg, S. Determinants of the decision to perform prophylactic oophorectomy in association with a hysterectomy for a benign condition. Maturitas 2012, 73, 164–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rocca, W.A.; Gazzuola Rocca, L.; Smith, C.Y.; Grossardt, B.R.; Faubion, S.S.; Shuster, L.T.; Kirkland, J.L.; Stewart, E.A.; Miller, V.M. Bilateral Oophorectomy and Accelerated Aging: Cause or Effect? J. Gerontol. Ser. A 2017, 72, 1213–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Buppasiri, P.; Salang, L.; Kaebkaew, P.; Chaisuriya, N. Rate of Prophylaxis Oophorectomy and Associated Factors at the Time of Hysterectomy in Premenopausal Women with Benign Diseases. J. Med. Assoc. Thail. 2021, 104, 709–714. [Google Scholar]
- Cusimano, M.C.; Chiu, M.; Ferguson, S.E.; Moineddin, R.; Aktar, S.; Liu, N.; Baxter, N.N. Association of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with all cause and cause specific mortality: Population based cohort study. BMJ 2021, 375, e067528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Nierengarten, M.B. Not removing ovaries during benign hysterectomy: Benefits may outweigh risks. Cancer 2023, 129, 2602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rush, S.K.; Ma, X.; Newton, M.A.; Rose, S.L. A Revised Markov Model Evaluating Oophorectomy at the Time of Hysterectomy for Benign Indication. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 139, 735–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Haber, H.R.; French, H.M.; Movilla, P.R.; Isaacson, K.B.; Morris, S.N. Take it or leave it: Oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023, 35, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, Y.; Wu, M.; Wu, C.; Zhu, Q.; Wu, T.; Zhu, X.; Wu, M.; Wang, S. Effect of hysterectomy on ovarian function: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Ovarian Res. 2023, 16, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Khadilkar, S.S.; Samant, M. OOPHORECTOMY: When and Why? A Novel Risk Stratification Tool as an Aid to Decision Making at Gynecological Surgeries. J. Obstet. Gynecol. India 2023, 73, 471–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Zhao, L.; Lynch, L.; Eiriksson, L. Information needs of Lynch syndrome and BRCA 1/2 mutation carriers considering risk-reducing gynecological surgery: A qualitative study of the decision-making process. Hered. Cancer Clin. Pract. 2024, 22, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Hassan, H.; Rahman, T.; Bacon, A.; Knott, C.; Allen, I.; Huntley, C.; Loong, L.; Walburga, Y.; Morris, E.; Hardy, S.; et al. Long-term outcomes of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women with personal history of breast cancer. BMJ Oncol. 2025, 4, e000574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Minneci, P.C.; Bergus, K.C.; Lutz, C.; Aldrink, J.; Bence, C.; Breech, L.; Dillon, P.A.; Downard, C.; Ehrlich, P.F.; Fallat, M.; et al. Reducing Unnecessary Oophorectomies for Benign Ovarian Neoplasms in Pediatric Patients. JAMA 2023, 330, 1247–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Hermens, M.; van Altena, A.M.; Bulten, J.; van Vliet, H.A.M.; Siebers, A.G.; Bekkers, R.L. Incidence of ovarian cancer after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women with histologically proven endometriosis. Fertil. Steril. 2022, 117, 938–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ward, S.M.; Isaacs, C. Salpingo-oophorectomy. Medscape 2024, 189, 4587. [Google Scholar]
- Cusimano, M.C.; Moineddin, R.; Chiu, M.; Ferguson, S.E.; Aktar, S.; Liu, N.; Baxter, N.N. Practice variation in bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at benign abdominal hysterectomy: A population-based study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021, 224, 585.e1–585.e30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cockrum, R.; Tu, F. Hysterectomy for Chronic Pelvic Pain. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. N. Am. 2022, 49, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mielke, M.M.; Kapoor, E.M.; Geske, J.R.; Fields, J.A.; LeBrasseur, N.K.; Morrow, M.M.; Winham, S.J.; Faubion, L.L.B.; Castillo, A.M.; Hofrenning, E.I.B.; et al. Long-term effects of premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy with or without hysterectomy on physical aging and chronic medical conditions. Menopause 2023, 30, 1090–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Lai, J.C.; Huang, N.; Huang, S.M.; Hu, H.Y.; Wang, C.W.; Chou, Y.J.; Wang, K.L. Decreasing trend of hysterectomy in Taiwan: A population-based study, 1997–2010. Taiwan J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015, 54, 512–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Erickson, Z.B.; Rocca, W.A.; Smith, C.Y.B.; Rocca, L.G.; Stewart, E.A.; Laughlin-Tommaso, S.K.; Mielke, M.M. Time Trends in Unilateral and Bilateral Oophorectomy in a Geographically Defined American Population. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 139, 724–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Doll, K.M.; Dusetzina, S.B.; Robinson, W. Trends in Inpatient and Outpatient Hysterectomy and Oophorectomy Rates Among Commercially Insured Women in the United States, 2000–2014. JAMA Surg. 2016, 151, 876–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Mahal, A.S.; Rhoads, K.F.; Elliott, C.S.; Sokol, E.R. Inappropriate oophorectomy at time of benign premenopausal hysterectomy. Menopause 2017, 24, 947–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kundu, S.; Acharya, S.S. Exploring the triggers of premature and early menopause in India: A comprehensive analysis based on National Family Health Survey, 2019–2021. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 3040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
Age Group | Outcome | Indication | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
41–45 years | 8% oophorectomy rate | Ovarian conservation recommended due to higher cardiovascular and metabolic risks. | [16] |
46–50 years | 29% oophorectomy rate | BSO more likely, but ovarian conservation is beneficial for low-risk women. | [17] |
51+ years | 83% oophorectomy rate | Higher likelihood of BSO due to cancer risk concerns and menopausal transition. | [18] |
<46 years | 24% faster accumulation of chronic conditions post-BSO | Early removal leads to higher risks of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and cognitive decline. | [19] |
<50 years | Higher mortality risk without estrogen therapy | Estrogen mitigates surgical menopause risks, improving survival rates. | [20] |
50–54 years | Lower mortality risk (HR 0.83; p = 0.018) | Decision should be personalized, factoring in cancer risk, cardiovascular health, and menopausal symptoms. | [21] |
55+ years | No significant difference in mortality risk | Surgical decisions should focus on individualized patient needs. | [22] |
Risk Category | Key Findings | Clinical Recommendations | References |
---|---|---|---|
Low-Risk Patients (No Genetic Predisposition) | Ovarian conservation is recommended. | Avoid elective oophorectomy unless medically indicated. | [23] |
High-Risk Patients (BRCA1/2, Lynch Syndrome) | Prophylactic oophorectomy significantly reduces ovarian cancer risk in genetically predisposed women. | Strong recommendation for oophorectomy in high-risk genetic mutations carriers. | [24] |
Women with Breast Cancer History | Individualized risk assessment is necessary before opting for BSO. HRT remains controversial in breast cancer survivors. | Tailored approach required, weighing risks vs. benefits before oophorectomy. | [26] |
Benign Ovarian Masses and Low-Risk Indications | Ovary-sparing surgery prioritizes preventing unnecessary removal. Preoperative risk stratification distinguishes benign vs. malignant lesions. | Avoid unnecessary ovarian removal and consider conservative alternatives. | [27] |
Salpingectomy vs. Oophorectomy for Cancer Prevention | Most epithelial ovarian cancers originate in the fallopian tube, prompting interest in salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy. | Delayed oophorectomy offers potentially safer outcomes, improving quality of life. | [2] |
Endometriosis and Oophorectomy | Women with endometriosis who underwent BSO showed lower ovarian cancer incidence. | Preventive strategy should be considered for high-risk endometriosis patients. | [28] |
Prophylactic Oophorectomy in Premenopausal Women | Rate of elective oophorectomy linked to hospital and physician preferences rather than guidelines. | Standardization needed for surgical decision-making. | [18] |
Long-Term Impact on Aging and Health | BSO linked to accelerated aging, including increased chronic conditions within six years post-surgery. | Ovarian preservation should be considered for younger women. | [17] |
Practice Variation and Surgeon Preference | Surgeon preference strongly determines oophorectomy rates, particularly for women aged 45–54. Clinical guidelines remain unclear for this age group. | Standardized surgical criteria needed to minimize hospital variation. | [21] |
Chronic Pelvic Pain and Hysterectomy | Hysterectomy is a last resort and should only be performed after exhausting conservative treatments. | Careful patient selection ensures unnecessary procedures are minimized. | [31] |
Elective Oophorectomy for Benign Gynecological Disorders | Oophorectomy for benign conditions carries long-term risks, including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and cognitive decline. | Ovarian preservation recommended in low-risk patients to reduce post-surgical complications. | [25] |
Salpingo-Oophorectomy as Treatment for Benign Conditions | Oophorectomy remains a management strategy for adnexal torsion, tubo-ovarian abscess, ectopic pregnancy, and severe endometriosis. | Clinical guidelines should balance ovarian preservation with surgical necessity. | [29] |
Practice Variation in Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy | Surgeon preference is a major determinant of whether BSO is performed, with higher rates among women aged 45–54 years. | Standardized guidelines needed to improve evidence-based surgical decision-making. | [30] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Giannakaki, A.-G.; Giannakaki, M.-N.; Nikolettos, K.; Pagkaki, C.; Tsikouras, P. The Optimal Age for Oophorectomy in Women with Benign Conditions: A Narrative Review. J. Pers. Med. 2025, 15, 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15040158
Giannakaki A-G, Giannakaki M-N, Nikolettos K, Pagkaki C, Tsikouras P. The Optimal Age for Oophorectomy in Women with Benign Conditions: A Narrative Review. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2025; 15(4):158. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15040158
Chicago/Turabian StyleGiannakaki, Aikaterini-Gavriela, Maria-Nektaria Giannakaki, Konstantinos Nikolettos, Christina Pagkaki, and Panagiotis Tsikouras. 2025. "The Optimal Age for Oophorectomy in Women with Benign Conditions: A Narrative Review" Journal of Personalized Medicine 15, no. 4: 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15040158
APA StyleGiannakaki, A.-G., Giannakaki, M.-N., Nikolettos, K., Pagkaki, C., & Tsikouras, P. (2025). The Optimal Age for Oophorectomy in Women with Benign Conditions: A Narrative Review. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 15(4), 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15040158