Preservation of the ovary: a reevaluation

Celso-Ramón García, Winnifred B. Cutler
In: Fertility and Sterility · 1984 · vol. 42(4) , pp. 510–514 · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)48130-6 · PMID:6489534 · W2408373797
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 2 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-11 ⓘ

This paper reevaluates the methods and outcomes of ovarian preservation techniques to assess their effectiveness and limitations.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

The incidence of routine ovariectomy approximates 20% to 30% of all women at hysterectomy. The propriety of this practice is evaluated from three perspectives: the review of the longevity of ovarian hormonal function throughout life, the review of the low risk of subsequent disease in the retained ovary, and the review of epidemiologic considerations. Because oophorectomy and the loss of its steroid contribution has such a profound influence on many body functions, with the most devastating relation to osteoporosis, and because there are no meaningful data in the literature to support the value of routine oophorectomy, removal of ovaries should only be performed when the ovaries are diseased.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cites (3)

Cited by (2)

References (48)

Cited by (2)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-09-17T06:32:46.214484+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK