A comparative study of hysteroscopic sterilization performed in-office versus a hospital operating room

Salpingectomy, tubal ligation and hysteroscopic occlusion for sterilization

INTRODUCTION

Sterilization of females is considered one of the most prevalent contraceptive techniques among women in the United States. There are many surgical sterilization procedures including salpingectomy, tubal ligation, and hysteroscopic occlusion of the fallopian tubes. We provide an overview of these methods from the clinical data and latest studies available on this topic.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

In order to review the latest literature on the topic, we searched electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane library for all eligible studies from May 1st 2018 until May 1st 2022 using the following strategy: ("fallopian tube removal" OR Salpingectomy OR "fallopian tube excision" OR "tubal sterilization") AND ("tubal ligation" OR "bipolar coagulation" OR "tubal clip" OR "tubal ring" OR fimbriectomy). We reviewed every study that met our criteria and subjectively considered their results and methodology into this narrative review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

In addition to reviewing major guidelines in the United States, 19 recent studies met our eligibility criteria and were included in this review. We grouped the findings under the following headings: anatomical and physiological considerations, sterilization, salpingectomy, tubal ligation, and hysteroscopic tubal occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral salpingectomy and techniques of tubal ligation or occlusion continue to be effective procedures with good safety profiles. All techniques have similar surgical outcomes and long-term success rates. As salpingectomy has the advantage of reducing the risk of occurrence of ovarian cancer, this is preferential when feasible. Hysteroscopic occlusion techniques may be more minimally invasive but have the disadvantages of delayed efficacy, the need for a second invasive diagnostic procedure, and limited availability.

Comparing options for females seeking permanent contraception in high resource countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multiple options for permanent or long-acting contraception are available, each with adverse effects and benefits. People seeking to end their fertility, and their healthcare providers, need a comprehensive comparison of methods to support their decision-making. Permanent contraceptive methods should be compared with long-acting methods that have similar effectiveness and lower anticipated adverse effects, such as the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraception (LNG-IUC). We aimed to understand the comparability of options for people seeking to end their fertility, using high-quality studies. We sought studies comparing laparoscopic tubal ligation, hysteroscopic tubal occlusion, bilateral salpingectomy, and insertion of the LNG-IUC, for effectiveness, adverse events, tolerability, patient recovery, non-contraceptive benefits, and healthcare system costs among females in high resource countries seeking to permanently avoid conception.

METHODS

We followed PRISMA guidelines, searched EMBASE, Pubmed (Medline), Web of Science, and screened retrieved articles to identify additional studies. We extracted data on population, interventions, outcomes, follow-up, health system costs, and study funding source. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias and excluded studies with medium-high risk of bias (NOS < 7). Due to considerable heterogeneity, we performed a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Our search identified 6,612 articles. RG, BV, BC independently reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance. We reviewed the full text of 154 studies, yielding 34 studies which met inclusion criteria. We excluded 10 studies with medium-high risk of bias, retaining 24 in our synthesis. Most studies compared hysteroscopic tubal occlusion and/or laparoscopic tubal ligation. Most comparisons reported on effectiveness and adverse events; fewer reported tolerability, patient recovery, non-contraceptive benefits, and/or healthcare system costs. No comparisons reported accessibility, eligibility, or follow-up required. We found inconclusive evidence comparing the effectiveness of hysteroscopic tubal occlusion to laparoscopic tubal ligation. All studies reported adverse events. All forms of tubal interruption reported a protective effect against cancers. Tolerability appeared greater among tubal ligation patients compared to hysteroscopic tubal occlusion patients. No high-quality studies included the LNG-IUC.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies are needed to directly compare surgical forms of permanent contraception, such as tubal ligation or removal, with alternative options, such as intrauterine contraception to support decision-making.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO [CRD42016038254].

Comparing options for women seeking permanent contraception in high-resource countries: a protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

For women seeking permanent contraception, there are a variety of options available including surgical techniques such as tubal ligation or bilateral salpingectomy, in-clinic procedures such as hysteroscopic techniques using micro-inserts, or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive. Despite the various methods available for women who are seeking permanent contraception, there is not a review or decision-making tool that systematically brings together outcomes related to effectiveness, tolerability, adverse effects, non-contraceptive benefits, recovery, or accessibility: all of which are important for shared decision-making between patients and health care providers.

METHODS

We registered our protocol [on Prospero: CRD42016038254] following PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy was created in collaboration with a librarian, and three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science) will be searched along with secondary screening of relevant articles. A third reviewer will adjudicate any discrepancies. Data will be extracted independently according to population, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOS); length of follow-up; and funding. Articles will be assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool. If appropriate, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to rank and analyze each method according to each objective. If heterogeneity between studies is too high or it is not possible to conduct a network meta-analysis, a narrative analysis of the study results will be provided.

DISCUSSION

Clinicians and their patients seeking permanent contraception have several options, yet we were unable to find a systematic review or decision support tool helping to facilitate shared decision-making. This systematic review can inform patients, providers, and health policy decision-makers about which options of permanent contraception will meet different reproductive goals according to various outcomes, which can lead to better health, social, economic, and mental well-being for reproductive age women. This can also aid our understanding of resulting costs to the health care system.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016038254.

Current techniques and outcomes in hysteroscopic sterilization: current evidence, considerations, and complications with hysteroscopic sterilization micro inserts

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the current data regarding effectiveness, complications, postoperative evaluation, and surgical interventions associated with Essure hysteroscopic sterilization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hysteroscopic sterilization is a commonly performed procedure that is offered as a well tolerated, effective, outpatient method of permanent sterilization. Over the past several years, concerns have been raised regarding correct placement and postoperative complications. This has led to statements by both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in October, 2016 and American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists in February, 2017, as a significant portion of women seek removal of these devices. A current black-box warning issued by the FDA in 2016 recommends discussion of 'the probabilities of rates or events' of adverse outcomes associated with Essure placement.

SUMMARY

Although hysteroscopic sterilization is usually a safe, effective option for permanent contraception, new evidence regarding complications has emphasized the need for proper education and counseling. Appropriate patient selection and knowledge of potential complications is paramount to ensuring patients, and medical providers are well informed and have realistic expectations regarding potential placement and postoperative issues.

The effect of obesity on intraoperative complication rates with hysteroscopic compared to laparoscopic sterilization: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Surgical sterilization is a common method of contraception. There have been few studies evaluating the effect of obesity on procedural complications with either laparoscopic or hysteroscopic methods of sterilization. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of intraoperative complications of hysteroscopic tubal occlusion with laparoscopic tubal ligation among obese and nonobese women.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared women undergoing interval laparoscopic or hysteroscopic sterilization in the operating room between September 2009 and December 2011 at a single hospital. Serious complications included: unintended surgery, uterine perforation, anaphylaxis, blood transfusion, infection requiring antibiotics, hospital admission, fluid overload, myocardial infarction, and venous thromboembolism. Post-operative events included: nausea/vomiting, doctor evaluation or additional pain medication required in the recovery room, and emergency department visit within 2 weeks of surgery. The association between sterilization type and incidence of complications was examined overall, separately by BMI group, and also among patients who received general anesthesia.

Results

A total of 433 laparoscopic and 277 hysteroscopic procedures were reviewed. The BMI distribution of the sample was 35 % normal weight, 31 % overweight, and 34 % obese which is comparable to the general US female population. No life-threatening events were identified. Serious complications were similar with 20 (4.6 %) in the laparoscopic group and 11 (4.0 %) in the hysteroscopic group (p = 0.9). The most common serious complications were bleeding from the tube, cervical laceration, and uterine perforation. Although not statistically significant, women with a BMI of 30 or greater had only 1 (1 %) serious complication in the hysteroscopic group compared to 7 (5.2 %) in the laparoscopic group. Postoperative events were increased in the laparoscopic group (16.2 %) compared to the hysteroscopic group (6.9 %), especially among overweight and obese women (p <0.01). Failure to complete the intended bilateral occlusion occurred for 14 women in the hysteroscopic group compared to just one woman in the laparoscopic group (p <0.001).

Conclusion

Both laparoscopic and hysteroscopic tubal sterilization are safe with few serious complications based on these data. No cases of laparotomy, blood transfusion, or life-threatening events were identified. There was no difference in serious complication rate by sterilization method. Overweight and obese women were no more likely to experience a serious complication with either method than women with a BMI <25. There were fewer postoperative events (p <0.01) with hysteroscopic sterilization, but far fewer failed laparoscopic procedures (p <0.001). These study findings can be used to enhance sterilization counseling.

A Meta-Analysis of Bilateral Essure® Procedural Placement Success Rates on First Attempt

Background: The Essure® (Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Leverkusen, Germany) female sterilization procedure entails using a hysteroscope to guide a microinsert into the Fallopian tube openings. Failed placement can lead to patient dissatisfaction, repeat procedures, unintended or ectopic pregnancy, perforation of internal organs, or need for subsequent medical interventions. Additional interventions increase women's health risks, and costs for patients and the health care industry. Demonstrated successful placement rates are 63%-100%. To date, there have not been any systematic analyses of variables associated with placement rates. Objectives: The aims of this review were: (1) to estimate the average rate of successful bilateral Essure microinsert placement on first attempt; and (2) to identify variables associated with successful placement. Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted on 64 published studies and 19 variables. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, all published studies between November 2001 and February 2015 were reviewed. The studies were taken from from PubMed and Google Scholar, and by using the the "snowball" method that reported variables associated with successful bilateral Essure placement rates. Results: The weighted average rate of successful bilateral microinsert placement on first attempt was 92% (0.92 [95% confidence interval: 0.904-0.931]). Variables associated with successful placements were: (1) newer device models; (2) higher body mass index; and (3) a higher percent of patients who received local anesthesia. Conclusions: The data gathered for this review indicate that the highest bilateral success rates may be obtained by utilizing the newest Essure device model with local anesthesia in heavier patients. More standardized data reporting in published Essure studies is recommended. (J GYNECOL SURG 31:308).

Probability of pregnancy after sterilization: a comparison of hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic sterilization

OBJECTIVE

To compare the expected probability of pregnancy after hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic sterilization based on available data using decision analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

We developed an evidence-based Markov model to estimate the probability of pregnancy over 10 years after three different female sterilization procedures: hysteroscopic, laparoscopic silicone rubber band application and laparoscopic bipolar coagulation. Parameter estimates for procedure success, probability of completing follow-up testing and risk of pregnancy after different sterilization procedures were obtained from published sources.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis at all points in time after the sterilization procedure, the initial and cumulative risk of pregnancy after sterilization is higher in women opting for hysteroscopic than either laparoscopic band or bipolar sterilization. The expected pregnancy rates per 1000 women at 1 year are 57, 7 and 3 for hysteroscopic sterilization, laparoscopic silicone rubber band application and laparoscopic bipolar coagulation, respectively. At 10 years, the cumulative pregnancy rates per 1000 women are 96, 24 and 30, respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the three procedures would have an equivalent pregnancy risk of approximately 80 per 1000 women at 10 years if the probability of successful laparoscopic (band or bipolar) sterilization drops below 90% and successful coil placement on first hysteroscopic attempt increases to 98% or if the probability of undergoing a hysterosalpingogram increases to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Based on available data, the expected population risk of pregnancy is higher after hysteroscopic than laparoscopic sterilization. Consistent with existing contraceptive classification, future characterization of hysteroscopic sterilization should distinguish "perfect" and "typical" use failure rates.

IMPLICATIONS

Pregnancy probability at 1 year and over 10 years is expected to be higher in women having hysteroscopic as compared to laparoscopic sterilization.

Hysteroscopic sterilization in the office setting

Hysteroscopic sterilization is growing in popularity. Nearly 500,000 women have been sterilized using this method, and an increasing number of physicians are now performing this procedure in the office setting. The office setting can provide a cost-effective, convenient, and safe environment for hysteroscopic sterilization. Patients may benefit from avoiding hospital preoperative visits, excessive laboratory evaluation, operating room wait times, and expense associated with hospital care. Physicians may improve productivity through remaining in their office or avoiding operating room delays. This article reviews office-hysteroscopic sterilization with the Essure microinsert system.

Hysteroscopic sterilization success in outpatient vs office setting is not affected by patient or procedural characteristics

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine factors associated with hysteroscopic sterilization success and whether it differs between the operating room and office settings.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Major university medical center.

PATIENTS

Six hundred thirty-eight women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2011.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Data collected included age, body mass index, previous office procedures, previous cesarean section, and presence of myomas or retroverted uterus. Place of surgery, experience of surgeon, insurance type, bilateral device placement, compliance with hysterosalpingography, and confirmation of occlusion were also recorded. Bivariate analysis of patient characteristics between groups was performed using χ(2) and independent t tests, and identified confounders and associated variables. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression to assess for association and to adjust for confounders. Procedures were performed in the operating room (57%) or in the office (43%). There was no association between success in bilateral device placement or occlusion and any patient characteristic, regardless of surgery setting. Private insurance, patient age, and performance of procedures in the office setting were positively associated with likelihood of compliance with hysterosalpingography.

CONCLUSION

Successful device placement and tubal occlusion are independent of patient age, body mass index, or setting of the procedure. Association between insurance type and completing hysterosalpingography illustrates an important public health problem. Patients who fail to undergo hysterosalpingography to confirm tubal occlusion may unknowingly be at risk of pregnancy and increased risk of ectopic pregnancy.

Pain management for tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy involves inserting a foreign body in both fallopian tubes. Over a three-month period, the tubal lumen is occluded by tissue growth stimulated by the insert. Tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy has advantages over laparoscopy or mini-laparotomy, including the avoidance of abdominal incisions and the convenience of performing the procedure in an office-based setting. Pain, an important determinant of procedure acceptability, can be a concern when tubal sterilization is performed in the office.

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions to decrease pain during tubal sterilization by hysteroscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

From January to March 2011, we searched the computerized databases of MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL for relevant trials. We searched for current trials via Clinicaltrials.gov. We also examined the reference lists of pertinent articles and wrote to known investigators for information about other published or unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that evaluated pain management at the time of sterilization by hysteroscopy. The intervention could be compared to another intervention or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Initial data were extracted by one review author. A second review author verified all extracted data. Whenever possible, the analysis was conducted with all women randomized and in the original assigned groups. Data were analyzed using RevMan software. Pain was measured using either a 10-cm or 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). When pain was measured at multiple points during the procedure, the overall pain score was considered the primary treatment effect. If this was not measured, a summation of all pain scores for the procedure was considered to be the primary treatment effect. For continuous variables, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval was computed.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. The total number of participants was 167. Using a 10-cm VAS to measure pain, no significant difference emerged in overall pain for the entire procedure between women who received a paracervical block with lidocaine versus normal saline (mean difference -0.77; 95% CI -2.67 to 1.13). No significant difference in pain score was noted at the time of injection of study solution to the anterior lip of the cervix (mean difference -0.6; 95% CI -1.3 to 0.1), placement of the device in the tubal ostia (mean difference -0.60; 95% CI -1.8 to 0.7), and postprocedure pain (mean difference 0.2; 95% CI -0.8 to 1.2). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8 minutes) and successful bilateral placement (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.19 to 5.28) was not significantly different between groups. During certain portions of the procedure, such as placement of the tenaculum (mean difference -2.03; 95% CI -2.88 to -1.18), administration of the paracervical block (mean difference -1.92; 95% CI -2.84 to -1.00), and passage of the hysteroscope through the external (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.30 to -1.32) and internal os (mean difference -2.31; 95% CI -3.39 to -1.23), use of paracervical block with lidocaine resulted in lower pain scores.Using a 600-point scale calculated by adding 100-point VAS scores from six different portions of the procedure, no significant difference emerged in overall pain between women who received intravenous conscious sedation versus oral analgesia (mean difference -23.00; CI -62.02 to 16.02). Using a 100-point VAS, no significant difference emerged at the time of speculum insertion (mean difference 4.0; 95% CI -4.0 to 12.0), cervical injection of lidocaine (mean difference -1.8; 95% CI -10.0 to 6.4), insertion of the hysteroscope (mean difference -8.7; 95% CI -19.7 to 2.3), placement of the first device (mean difference -4.4; 95% CI -15.8 to 7.0), and removal of the hysteroscope (mean difference 0.9; 95% CI -3.9 to 5.7). Procedure time (mean difference -0.2 minutes; 95% CI -2.0 to 1.6 minutes) and time in the recovery area (mean difference 3.6 minutes; 95% CI -11.3 to 18.5 minutes) was not different between groups. However, women who received intravenous conscious sedation had lower pain scores at the time of insertion of the second tubal device compared to women who received oral analgesia (mean difference -12.60; CI -23.98 to -1.22).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available literature is insufficient to determine the appropriate analgesia or anesthesia for sterilization by hysteroscopy. Compared to paracervical block with normal saline, paracervical block with lidocaine reduced pain during some portions of the procedure. Intravenous sedation resulted in lower pain scores during insertion of the second tubal device. However, neither paracervical block with lidocaine nor conscious sedation significantly reduced overall pain scores for sterilization by hysteroscopy.

Preprocedure patient preferences and attitudes toward permanent contraceptive options

OBJECTIVE

To determine patient preference for laparoscopic tubal occlusion or hysteroscopic tubal occlusion, two common sterilization interventions, and the acceptability of a postprocedure confirmation test for a hysteroscopic approach.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

A total of 100 patients were offered two procedures. A description of each procedure was developed and read to each patient by a research nurse on site. Patients were then asked to respond to a questionnaire concerning options. Final informed consent, procedure review, and procedural date determination were provided by a physician upon completion of the questionnaire. Patients were not allowed to change their questionnaire responses after completion. No interviewer or physician input was allowed during the questionnaire. The study was completed in English or Spanish, as per patient request, by a bilingual/fluent speaker. Physicians completing informed consent were unaware of the questionnaire responses. Patients were not financially incentivized.

RESULTS

Of 100 participants, 93 (93%) preferred hysteroscopic sterilization to laparoscopy. The reasons were as follows: fear of general anesthesia (24/93 [26%]), fear of incision (25/93 [27%]), cost (32/93 [34%]), and time (12/93 [13%]) to return to routine activity. All 93 viewed "office-based location" as the main advantage over laparoscopy; 88/93 (94.6%) considered a confirmation test to be a benefit of the procedure. After informed consent was obtained, one additional patient switched from a laparoscopic decision to hysteroscopy (total = 94/100); 89/94 (95%) hysteroscopic decisions underwent hysteroscopic sterilization; 4/6 (67%) laparoscopic decisions proceeded to that surgery. The remainder (N = 7) cancelled due to lack of financial resources.

CONCLUSION

A nonincisional, office-based approach to sterilization has high patient acceptability. Patients viewed a confirmatory test for tubal occlusion as a benefit after sterilization.

Tubal risk markers for failure to place transcervical sterilization coils

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature on placement rates of the Essure® procedure, yet prior studies have not attempted to identify tubal-associated risk factors for placement failures. The current study examines risk markers associated with the inability to deploy the Essure® coils into the tubal lumen using the new ESS305 design.

STUDY DESIGN

We used electronic medical record data to assess risk markers associated with the inability to place the Essure coils in the tubal lumen using the new ESS305 design. A total of 310 attempted procedures between June 14, 2007, and April 29, 2011, were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 18 tubal failures (5.8%) out of the 310 attempted procedures. A history of a prior sexually transmitted infection (STI) was associated with tubal failure (odds ratio 2.64, 95% confidence interval 1.01-6.90, p=.048).

CONCLUSIONS

We speculate that the observed association between a prior STI and an inability to place the coil was due to a past history of pelvic inflammatory disease.

Reliability of laparoscopic compared with hysteroscopic sterilization at 1 year: a decision analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the probability of successful sterilization after an hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization procedure.

METHODS

An evidence-based clinical decision analysis using a Markov model was performed to estimate the probability of a successful sterilization procedure using laparoscopic sterilization, hysteroscopic sterilization in the operating room, and hysteroscopic sterilization in the office. Procedure and follow-up testing probabilities for the model were estimated from published sources.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, the proportion of women having a successful sterilization procedure on the first attempt is 99% for laparoscopic sterilization, 88% for hysteroscopic sterilization in the operating room, and 87% for hysteroscopic sterilization in the office. The probability of having a successful sterilization procedure within 1 year is 99% with laparoscopic sterilization, 95% for hysteroscopic sterilization in the operating room, and 94% for hysteroscopic sterilization in the office. These estimates for hysteroscopic success include approximately 6% of women who attempt hysteroscopically but are ultimately sterilized laparoscopically. Approximately 5% of women who have a failed hysteroscopic attempt decline further sterilization attempts.

CONCLUSION

Women choosing laparoscopic sterilization are more likely than those choosing hysteroscopic sterilization to have a successful sterilization procedure within 1 year. However, the risk of failed sterilization and subsequent pregnancy must be considered when choosing a method of sterilization.

Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of the Essure™ procedure

The Essure™ system for permanent contraception was developed as a less invasive method of female sterilization. Placement of the Essure™ coil involves a hysteroscopic transcervical technique. This procedure can be done in a variety of settings and with a range of anesthetic options. More than eight years have passed since the US Food and Drug Administration approval of Essure™. Much research has been done to evaluate placement success, adverse outcomes, satisfaction, pain, and the contraceptive efficacy of the Essure™. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available literature regarding the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction with this new sterilization technique.

Review of new office-based hysteroscopic procedures 2003-2009

Office operative hysteroscopy is a recent technique that enables treatment of uterine pathologic disorders in the ambulatory setting using miniaturized hysteroscopes with mechanical or electric instruments. The available international literature from 1990 to 2002 has clearly demonstrated that such technique enables performance of hysteroscopically directed endometrial biopsy and treatment of uterine adhesions, anatomic disorders, polyps, and small myomas safely and successfully without cervical dilation and the need for anesthesia. This review provides a comprehensive survey of further advancements of office operative hysteroscopy in the treatment of other gynecologic pathologic conditions that have not been included in the schema of treatment indications for office procedures proposed in 2002. A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified articles published from 2003 to 2009. Eighteen articles were identified: 9 on hysteroscopic sterilization; 1 on office-based metroplasty, 8 on office-based treatment of some uncommon gynecologic pathologic conditions (e.g., hematometra, diagnosis and treatment of vaginal lesions, treatment of uterine cystic neoformations, bleeding from the cervical stump, diagnosis and treatment of endocervical ossification, and removal of uterovaginal packing). All performed procedures were carried out safely and successfully in the office setting, with high patient tolerance and minimal discomfort. The success of the procedures has been confirmed by resolution of symptoms and at follow-up ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic examinations. Currently, as a result of technologic advancements and increased operator experience, an increasing number of gynecologic pathologic conditions traditionally treated in the operating room may be treated safely and effectively using office operative hysteroscopy.

Feasibility of office hysteroscopy through the "see and treat technique" in private practice: a prospective observational study

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to examine the feasibility of office hysteroscopy through the no-touch "see and treat technique" in a routine basis in private practice.

METHODS

In the private practice of two trained gynecologists, women with an indication for further investigation of the uterine cavity were treated with the technique. A total of 112 consecutive women were prospectively allocated to a "no-touch" and "see and treat" technique of hysteroscopy. Neither anaesthesia nor analgesia was used as soon as criteria were met. Hysteroscopy was performed using a rigid 3.4-mm hysteroscope and a medium of 0.9% saline.

RESULTS

Treatment efficacy and patient compliance were evaluated through scores on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, complications and success rates, along with the symphony between hysteroscopic findings and histology. The patients' pain score on the VAS was low and only in 2 out of 112 cases there was a marked discomfort. In four cases suggested treatment was not successful, because of the fear of the patient. In 60.71% of cases that hysteroscopy was indicated, the uterine cavity was normal. No complications or adverse effects were noted. Apart from one case, there was a full agreement between hysteroscopic findings and histology.

CONCLUSION

Office hysteroscopy is a successful and well-tolerated procedure. Through adequate expertise it should be considered the method of choice in private basis, at the same time when exploration of the uterine cavity is needed.

[Essure implants for tubal sterilisation in France]

OBJECTIVES

Law no. 2001-588 of 4 July 2001 liberalised the practice of tubal sterilisation in France, at the same time as a new hysteroscopic method of female sterilization appeared. The growth of this method has been spurred by the reduced need for analgesia, absence of incision and scar, reduced duration of hospitalization and diminution of costs. The aim of this study was to analyse the use of the Essure procedure in France.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multicentre study covered seven French facilities from January 2004 through June 2006. This study included 1061 attempted placements of the Essure micro-insert, marketed by Conceptus SAS (France).

RESULTS

The first placement attempt was successful in 992 cases (94.4%). The success rate for second attempts was 59% (n = 23). Mean VAS was 3,23 +/- 0.19. Ninety-three percent of patients undergoing Essure placement were satisfied or very satisfied.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Tubal sterilisation with Essure micro-inserts is a reliable and reproducible method that requires a short period of training. In the future, the hysteroscopic pathway will replace the laparoscopic route.

Transcervical sterilization

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the methods for achieving success with currently available transcervical sterilization procedures for permanent female contraception.

RECENT FINDINGS

The transcervical approach has long been thought to be the optimal method for permanent female sterilization, with tubal access achieved by blind, direct (hysteroscopic) or indirect (radiological) techniques, and occlusion being achieved by chemical, mechanical, or thermal techniques. Some combination of these access and occlusion methods encompasses all the current procedures and two types predominate. Quinacrine sterilization is a procedure that is widely used in the developing world, while hysteroscopic procedures such as the Essure and Adiana procedures are either currently available or emerging as visually controlled, device-dependent methods for reliable transcervical sterilization that may be performed in an outpatient or office setting with minimal anesthesia and high patient acceptability. Other devices are used but have less supportive data for their continued use.

SUMMARY

Transcervical methods of female sterilization have good tubal access and occlusion rates, high patient acceptability, and can be performed in an outpatient setting. This combination of factors may offer significant advantages to traditional laparoscopic approaches and render them more cost-effective.