OBIANUJU SANDRA MADUEKE-LAVEAUX, MD, MPH; BETH W. RACKOW, MD; AND ARNOLD P. ADVINCULA, MD (VIDEO; JANUARY 2017)
The fallopian tube should have been removed
I watched the video by Dr. Advincula and colleagues and as always was impressed with the surgical skills demonstrated. While the robot-assisted approach is quite nice, this case could have been accomplished with only three 5-mm lower abdominal port sites and traditional straight-stick laparoscopic methods. The cosmetic benefit to a 15-year-old patient of this alternative should have been considered.
More importantly, the fallopian tube separated from the rudimentary horn should have been removed. Leaving the right tube in situ exposes the patient to the possibility of a future ectopic pregnancy in that tube and provides no benefit to the patient.
David L. Zisow, MD
Dr. Advincula and team respond
We appreciate Dr. Zisow’s perspective. As is known, tool selection is based on surgeon preference. Inherent to this point, a discussion about route of surgery, and any implications it would have, such as cosmesis, was had. Cosmesis was not an issue with this patient, and she was quite pleased with her cosmetic outcome.
We also discussed preoperatively, among our team and with the patient, the right fallopian tube. Although removal would have been optimal, there was concern intraoperatively of possible compromise to the ovary. Hence, a decision was made to forego removal particularly in light of the extremely rare risk of transperitoneal migration of spermatozoa weighed against the risk of compromising a perfectly healthy ovary in a 15-year-old woman.
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to email@example.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.