Patients' satisfaction following laparoscopic cornuectomy for removal of hysteroscopic sterilization devices

Clinical improvement after Essure® devices removal: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Essure® implant is a permanently implanted minimally invasive birth control device for women (female sterilisation) widely used between 2002 and 2018. Many adverse events were reported by patients. Increasingly removal procedures have been performed in symptomatic patients. However, there is a lack of in-depth studies on clinical improvement after Essure® removal. We aimed to review all clinical studies about symptoms and quality of life (QoL) after removal procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of literature in electronic search in Medline and Embase databases from January 2002 to January 2022 using the following keywords: Essure; Essure removal; quality of life; symptomatology improvement.

RESULTS

Out of 764 articles in the initial database, 18 clinical studies were eligible for inclusion in our literature review. Overall clinical improvement rates after removal ranged from 21% to 98%. All symptoms were less frequent after Essure® removal, although with large discrepancies between studies. Lack of improvement was reported between 1% to 15% of patients. Rate of patients with improvement of QoL after removal ranged from 58 to 98%. The pain was reported as significantly reduced after the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In the available literature, Essure® removal in symptomatic patients may improve symptoms and quality of life. This should be discussed in the benefits and risks ratio before deciding on the best option of management.

Essure removal surgery: Are preoperative transvaginal ultrasound and pelvic X-ray necessary?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was twofold. (1) To investigate the predictive characteristics of transvaginal ultrasonography for hysteroscopy necessity in Essure removal surgery. (2) To investigate the additional predictive value of a preoperative pelvic radiograph to transvaginal ultrasonography for hysteroscopy necessity.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study, performed in an academic and a non-academic teaching hospital in the Netherlands. 71 women who underwent Essure removal surgery with a perioperative hysteroscopy and who had a preoperative pelvic X-ray and transvaginal ultrasound were included. Four experts first predicted hysteroscopy necessity based on transvaginal ultrasound description and secondly based on transvaginal ultrasound combined with the preoperative pelvic radiograph. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the predictive tests were calculated.

RESULTS

Based on transvaginal ultrasound, the mean predictive characteristics for experts were: sensitivity 89.7% (range 66.7%-100%), specificity 37.4% (range 17.6%-67.7%), positive predictive value 18.8% (range 13.2%-29.5%) and negative predictive value 95.1% (range 86.1%-100%). After adding the pelvic radiograph to the transvaginal ultrasound descriptions, the results were: sensitivity 66.7% (range 53.3%-80%), specificity 72.6% (range 56%-97.3%), positive predictive value 23% (range 14.3%-26.9%) and negative predictive value 94.1 % (range 90.3%-98.4%). For three experts sensitivity decreased after adding the pelvic radiograph. For all experts specificity increased.

CONCLUSION

It is difficult to preoperatively decide if the fourth marker of the Essure outer coil can be excised during hysteroscopy. The addition of pelvic radiography to transvaginal ultrasound is not beneficial. It is recommended to perform a hysteroscopy during Essure removal surgery.

Surgical techniques for the removal of Essure® microinserts: a literature review on current practice

PURPOSE

To evaluate the different techniques for Essure^® microinserts removal and to assess the risk of fracture of the device and the intra- and post-operative complications in relation to surgical technique variants.

METHODS

Electronic search in Medline, Scopus and Embase databases using the following keywords: Essure; Essure removal; Essure surgical technique.

RESULTS

Out of 95 articles in the initial database, 17 studies were eligible for inclusion in our literature review. Several surgical techniques have been described in which the most frequent were laparoscopic salpingectomy (LS), laparoscopic cornuectomy (LC), laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomy (LH, VH) with en-bloc salpingectomy. There were more fractures of the device with the LS procedure (6.25%) followed by the LC technique (2.77%), while there was no fracture with hysterectomy. However, peri-and post-operative complications were more severe and frequent with hysterectomy in comparison with the LC and LS procedures (respectively 8.1% Clavien Dindo grade 3 for the hysterectomy group, 1.11% for the LC procedure and 0.69% for the LS technique).

CONCLUSION

Due to the lack of standardised surgical treatment guidelines, a system of care networks for symptomatic patients with adverse effects related to Essure^® headed by specialised centres may offer a suitable and high-quality management with the appropriate removal techniques within two objectives: limiting the risk of fracture (with an en-bloc removal of the Essure^® microinserts) and avoiding intra- and post-operative complications.

Perioperative findings and complications in Essure® removal surgery

OBJECTIVE

To analyze perioperative findings and complications in surgical removal of Essure® microinserts.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective cohort study of 274 patients who underwent surgical removal of Essure® microinserts. Outcomes of the surgical procedures and complications were entered into a digital case report form (CRF) by the surgeon and registered in an online database. Results were analyzed through IBM SPSS Statistics using descriptive statistical methods.

RESULTS

During laparoscopic inspection in 15.4 % of fallopian tubes (n = 80) a chicken wing sign (the fallopian tube folding over the most distal part of the microinsert) was seen. Partial tubal perforation and total tubal perforation with migration of the microinsert out of the fallopian tube were seen in respectively 1.9 % (n = 10) and 0.2 % (n = 1) of cases. The microinserts were removed by laparoscopic tubotomy and extraction, followed by bilateral salpingectomy in 91.2 % of cases. In 7.3 % of cases (n = 20) a hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy was performed for additional indications than solely Essure® removal. Four microinserts were taken out entirely by means of hysteroscopy (1.5 %). We did not see major surgery related complications, however we found a risk of minor complications during or after surgery of respectively 1.6 % (n = 4) and 3.9 % (n = 10).

CONCLUSIONS

During laparoscopic inspection, abnormalities were seen in 22.8 % (n = 119) of fallopian tubes, of which the chicken wing sign was the most common. Partial and total tubal perforation with migration of the microinsert were rare. The complication rate of Essure® removal surgery in our prospective study is low and complications are minor, without any major complication. However, while counseling patients with a request for surgical removal of Essure® microinserts, these results should be mentioned.