Uchida tubal sterilization

Robot-Assisted Tubal Reanastomosis after Sterilization: A Choice for Family Planning

A variety of procedures have been used for family planning. One of these is sterilization surgery, which can be reversed by a tubal reanastomosis. In the present report, we compare Robot-assisted tubal reanastomosis sterilization with other methods of family planning and discuss factors related to the choice of the approach. The keywords used for the electronic search in PubMed were family planning, sterilization, Robot-assisted, tubal reanastomosis, depression, and regret. The decision in favor of or against sterilization surgery has been a sensitive issue for several years. Robot-assisted technology is a modern and precise approach. It has contributed to the flexibility of the decision between sterilization and its reversal through tubal reanastomosis, as well as enhanced the success rate of the surgery. Based on our analysis of the published literature, we believe that Robot-assisted tubal anastomosis is the optimum approach. However, to ensure the quality of health care, the surgeon must be well trained, well versed with the anatomy of the fallopian tubes, and thoroughly informed on the psychological impact of family planning.

Currently available devices for female sterilization

Sterilization is now the method of family planning most commonly used in the world. Over the last 150 years, research has evolved in the search for the ideal method of female sterilization. The procedure should ideally have high efficacy, be readily accessible and be personally and culturally acceptable. The method should be simple, quick, easily learned and be able to be performed in an outpatient setting without general anesthesia. The most common and effective method for sterilization has, thus far, been via the laparoscopic route. Hysteroscopic sterilization, however, potentially fulfills many of these ideal criteria, but until recently has remained more of a concept than a reality.

Minilaparotomy and endoscopic techniques for tubal sterilisation

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, the most commonly used method of fertility regulation is tubal sterilisation. In developed countries sterilisation is generally performed by laparoscopy rather than by minilaparotomy, based on the belief that this approach is both safe and effective. In developing countries, where the resources are limited for the purchase and maintenance of the more sophisticated laparoscopic equipment, minilaparotomy may still be the most common approach. In both resource poor and industrialised countries using the technique with the greatest effectiveness and safety, together with the least costs, is extremely important. Though both methods are widely used, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic sterilisation compared to mini-laparotomy have not been systematically evaluated. The ideal method would be one which is highly effective, economical, able to be performed on an outpatient basis, allowing rapid resumption of normal activity, producing a minimal or invisible scar and having a potential for reversibility. This review considers the methods to enter the abdominal cavity through the abdominal wall, either by minilaparotomy, laparoscopy or culdoscopy regardless of the technique used for tubal sterilisation.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate laparoscopic tubal sterilisation, as compared to minilaparotomy in terms of operative morbidity and mortality. Trials comparing laparoscopy or minilaparotomy with culdoscopy were also included in the review. Different methods used to interrupt tubal patency (excision, occlusion and coagulation) and comparison of different forms of anaesthesia will be considered in different reviews.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been identified by using the search strategy of the Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was last searched in 1999 (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 1999). Reference lists of identified trials have been searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopy, minilaparotomy and/or culdoscopy for tubal sterilisation. Except in one trial [Taner 1994] where 4 women underwent curettage at the same time, all women requested tubal sterilisation as an interval procedure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials under consideration were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion. Data were extracted independently by the reviewers. Results are reported as odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Minilaparotomy vs laparoscopy: There was no difference in major morbidity between the 2 groups. Minor morbidity was significantly less in the laparoscopy group (Peto OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.38, 2.59). Duration of operation was about 5 minutes shorter in the laparoscopy group (WMD 5.34; 95% CI 4.52, 6.16). Minilaparotomy vs culdoscopy: Women undergoing culdoscopy had more major morbidity than women for whom minilaparotomy was performed (Peto OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02, 0.98). Duration of operation was about 5 minutes shorter in women undergoing culdoscopy (WMD 4.91; 95% CI 3.82, 6.01). Laparoscopy vs culdoscopy: In the one trial comparing the two interventions there were no significant differences between the groups with regard to major morbidity. Significantly more women suffered from minor morbidities in the culdoscopy group compared to the laparoscopy group (Peto OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.05, 0.77).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Major morbidity seems to be a rare outcome for both, laparoscopy and minilaparotomy. The included studies had limited power to demonstrate significant differences especially for the relatively rare but potentially serious outcomes. Personal preference of the woman and/or of the surgeon can guide the choice of technique. Practical aspects (e.g. cost, maintenance, and sterilisation of the instruments) must be taken into account before implementing the more sophisticated endoscopic techniques in settings with limited resources. Culdoscopy is not recommended as it carries a higher complication rate.

Minilaparotomy and endoscopic techniques for tubal sterilisation

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, the most commonly used method of fertility regulation is tubal sterilisation. In developed countries sterilisation is generally performed by laparoscopy rather than by minilaparotomy, based on the belief that this approach is both safe and effective. In developing countries, where the resources are limited for the purchase and maintenance of the more sophisticated laparoscopic equipment, minilaparotomy may still be the most common approach. In both resource poor and industrialised countries using the technique with the greatest effectiveness and safety, together with the least costs, is extremely important. Though both methods are widely used, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic sterilisation compared to mini-laparotomy have not been systematically evaluated. The ideal method would be one which is highly effective, economical, able to be performed on an outpatient basis, allowing rapid resumption of normal activity, producing a minimal or invisible scar and having a potential for reversibility. This review considers the methods to enter the abdominal cavity through the abdominal wall, either by minilaparotomy, laparoscopy or culdoscopy regardless of the technique used for tubal sterilisation.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate laparoscopic tubal sterilisation, as compared to minilaparotomy in terms of operative morbidity and mortality. Trials comparing laparoscopy or minilaparotomy with culdoscopy were also included in the review. Different methods used to interrupt tubal patency (excision, occlusion and coagulation) and comparison of different forms of anaesthesia will be considered in different reviews.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been identified by using the search strategy of the Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was last searched in 1999 (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 1999). Reference lists of identified trials have been searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopy, minilaparotomy and/or culdoscopy for tubal sterilisation. Except in one trial [Taner 1994] where 4 women underwent curettage at the same time, all women requested tubal sterilisation as an interval procedure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials under consideration were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion. Data were extracted independently by the reviewers. Results are reported as odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Minilaparotomy vs laparoscopy: There was no difference in major morbidity between the 2 groups. Minor morbidity was significantly less in the laparoscopy group (Peto OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.38, 2.59). Duration of operation was about 5 minutes shorter in the laparoscopy group (WMD 5.34; 95% CI 4.52, 6.16). Minilaparotomy vs culdoscopy: Women undergoing culdoscopy had more major morbidity than women for whom minilaparotomy was performed (Peto OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02, 0.98). Duration of operation was about 5 minutes shorter in women undergoing culdoscopy (WMD 4.91; 95% CI 3.82, 6.01). Laparoscopy vs culdoscopy: In the one trial comparing the two interventions there were no significant differences between the groups with regard to major morbidity. Significantly more women suffered from minor morbidities in the culdoscopy group compared to the laparoscopy group (Peto OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.05, 0.77).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Major morbidity seems to be a rare outcome for both, laparoscopy and minilaparotomy. The included studies had limited power to demonstrate significant differences especially for the relatively rare but potentially serious outcomes. Personal preference of the woman and/or of the surgeon can guide the choice of technique. Practical aspects (e.g. cost, maintenance, and sterilisation of the instruments) must be taken into account before implementing the more sophisticated endoscopic techniques in settings with limited resources. Culdoscopy is not recommended as it carries a higher complication rate.

Sterilization

Sterilization is accepted as a permanent method of contraception by many couples in the world. Female sterilization is more widely used than male sterilization, but the latter is used by many couples in developed countries. The most widely used methods for female sterilization are simple tubal ligation, electrocautery of the fallopian tubes, and occlusion of the tubes by Hulka or Filshie clips or Falope rings. These procedures may be carried out either by minilaparotomy or by laparoscopy, under local anaesthesia. Sterilization may be performed immediately following pregnancy, or as an interval operation. The effectiveness of female sterilization is high, with failure rates of about 1-2 per 1000 procedures. Immediate complications are few and minor, while there appear to be no serious, long-term adverse effects. It is possible that there is a protective effect against ovarian cancer. Potential new technologies for female sterilization include the use of chemicals, such as quinacrine, for transcervical tubal occlusion, and hysteroscopic methods. Male sterilization is more simple and can readily be performed under local anaesthesia. A new technique originating in China, the no-scalpel technique, has made the procedure even more simple and produces fewer complications such as haematoma. It is possible that the direct injection of plug-forming material into the vas may render the procedure more reversible. Concerns about possible adverse effects of vasectomy on cardiovascular diseases and testicular cancer largely have been dispelled, but a possible weak association between vasectomy and prostatic cancer continues to be studied.

The development of contraceptive technology. Case studies of incentives and disincentives to innovation

This paper examines the characteristics of the process of innovation as applied to a range of contraceptive technologies. Whereas the understanding of how and why innovation works or does not work has grown in the past few decades in such professional fields as electronics, aviation, and optics, only the first attempts are currently under way in medicine. Borrowing from other fields, this paper proposes a theoretical underpinning to the process of innovation as it would apply to the development of medical technology. Subsequently, it documents this process with regard to contraceptive technology (oral contraceptives, injectables, intrauterine devices, implants, and surgical contraception), providing a framework of first-, second-, and third-generation definitions of development. A number of observations about the importance of certain supply- and demand-side determinants of the direction and rate of medical innovation conclude the essay.

Elective versus emergency cesarean hysterectomy cases in a residency program setting: a review of 129 cases from 1984 to 1988

A retrospective study was performed to compare elective versus emergency cesarean hysterectomy in a residency program. We noted the following statistically significant differences between emergency and elective cases: (1) Estimated blood loss (mean +/- SD) for emergency and elective cases was significantly different at 1495 +/- 772 and 875 +/- 396 ml (p = 0.001). (2) Operative time in emergency cases was significantly longer than in elective cases (105 +/- 38 vs 83 +/- 27 minutes, p = 0.003). (3) The incidence of transfusion was 68% in our emergency cases and 14.6% in the elective series (p less than 0.05). (4) Febrile morbidity in our series was 40% in emergency cases and 18.3% in elective cases (p less than 0.05). Our series was comparable to previous series reported. Our experience suggests that cesarean hysterectomy can be performed safely in a residency training program when done as an elective procedure in the well-prepared patient.

Outpatient microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization by a combined approach of laparoscopy and minilaparotomy

A prospective study of 17 cases of microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization by a combined approach of laparoscopy and minilaparotomy was performed. Inclusion criteria included age less than 43; weight less than ideal body weight plus 20%; documentation of ovulation; 2 cm of proximal oviduct on hysterosalpingography; and a normal semen analysis or postcoital test. A comparison group of the 5 cases of sterilization reversal performed by a standard inpatient technique during the same period was analyzed. The study technique was performed on an outpatient basis in 15 of the 17 cases, 12 patients (71%) conceived 13 intrauterine pregnancies, one ectopic pregnancy occurred, and total patient costs and time until return to work were significantly less with the study versus standard technique.

Nd:YAG coagulation of the verumontanum: an endoscopic attempt at sterilization

In order to develop a new and less invasive method of sterilization in men we performed photocoagulation of the verumontanum in 10 rams, using a Nd:YAG laser, wavelength 1,060 nm. Under general anesthesia a perineal urethro-cutaneous fistula was achieved, and, by means of a 16F laser-endoscope, transurethral coagulation of the ejaculatory ducts, located in the verumontanum, was carried out, using pulses of 1.5 sec in duration and 20-30 W in power. The animals were killed at different postoperative time intervals, ranging from 1 day to 8 weeks. Injection of methylene-blue into the testicular ducts of the resected prostate-bladder specimen and histologic studies of the coagulated tissue revealed that complete bilateral occlusion of the ejaculatory ducts had been achieved in 4 rams. Failures were due to over-extended irradiation of the verumontanum. Except for urinary tract infections occurring in 4 animals, no serious complications were encountered. Further investigations are still necessary to determine the role of lasers in male sterilization.

Prospective study of the pituitary-ovarian function after tubal sterilization by the Pomeroy or Uchida techniques

Surgical sterilization has become one of the most widely used methods of fertility regulation in the world. A common concern is the not yet clarified possible disturbance of the ovarian function resulting from the surgical procedure. A prospective study was carried out to contribute toward answering this question. Twenty subjects were enrolled in a longitudinal study of ovarian endocrine function before, and 2 and 6 months after, tubal ligation. The Pomeroy technique, which may compromise ovarian circulation, and the Uchida technique, which is free of this risk, were used randomly. Eight women who underwent to the Pomeroy technique and 9 who underwent the Uchida technique completed the protocol. Luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, estradiol, and progesterone were measured daily from days 10 through 18 of the cycle and every other day until the onset of the next menses. No change in any of the hormones studied was observed, with the exception of a significant increase in progesterone 2 months after tubal ligation by the Uchida technique.

The choice of sterilizing procedure according to its potential reversibility with microsurgery

Twenty-seven women were evaluated for reversal of previous tubal sterilization in the 2-year span beginning January 1, 1976. Of the thirteen who came to surgery, only seven were able to undergo reanastomosis. Five of these seven had had Pomeroy type ligations and two had ahd "one-burn" electrocoagulation. Six patients who had had "two- or three burn" electrocoagulation did not have sufficient length of fallopian tube remaining. Tubal patency was achieved in 87.5% of those who underwent reanastomosis. The pregnancy rate was 37.5%, with no ectopic pregnancies. Electrocoagulation is not recommended in healthy young women.

Tubal sterilization by a combined laparoscopic and external technique: preliminary report on 75 cases

A preliminary report is given on a new laparoscopic sterilization procedure. By a double-puncture method, a loop of tube is brought out of the abdomen through the suprapubic incision. The loop is then resected by a modified Pomeroy method. Between Octorber 1976 and June 1978, 75 sterilizations were performed without any major problem. Sterilization failed in one case when one tube could not be seen. All recoveries were uneventful. Safety, effectiveness, simplicity, and potential reversibility seem to be the qualities of this method.