Satisfaction and tolerance with office hysteroscopic tubal sterilization

Factors Associated with Negative Patient Experiences with Essure Sterilization

Study Objective:

The objective of the study was to identify factors associated with negative patient experiences with Essure.

Design:

This was a retrospective cohort study and follow-up survey.

Setting:

The study was conducted in an academic setting.

Patients:

Patients included women who had an Essure placed between 2002 and 2017.

Methods:

The hospitals' database was queried to identify subjects and charts were reviewed to confirm medical information. Subjects were invited by mail, e-mail, or phone call to participate a survey regarding symptoms and satisfaction with Essure. A comparison was made between women who reported a negative experience with Essure versus those who did not. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify subject or procedural characteristics associated with any negative experience with Essure sterilization.

Results:

Two hundred eighty-four women underwent Essure sterilization between 2002 and 2017, 42.3% of whom responded to the follow-up survey. Satisfaction with Essure was reported by 61.9% of respondents. Thirty-three percent of the respondents have undergone removal or desire removal of the device. The most frequent symptoms attributed to Essure were pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and vaginal bleeding. Forty-eight percent of the respondents were identified as having any negative experience with Essure. Factors associated with negative experiences with Essure included young age at placement (odds ratio [OR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79–0.94; P < .001), high gravidity (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.14–1.71; P = .002), and absent history of abdominal surgery (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.12–1.00; P = .049).

Conclusion:

Young age at placement, high gravidity, and absent history of abdominal surgery are factors associated with negative patient experiences following Essure sterilization. A negative experience with Essure is common, although dissatisfaction with the device is not always attributable to symptoms. This information could be considered when counseling women who plan removal of Essure.

Implications Statement:

Our study provides new follow-up data with respect to hysteroscopic sterilization. This research is the first to examine any cause for negative patient experiences with Essure. Understanding factors associated with negative patient experiences could improve patient counseling regarding the extent to which symptoms could be attributed to Essure as well as counseling women who want to undergo removal of the device. These factors could in turn prove to be predictors for successful resolution of symptoms after removal of Essure. Results of this study could also be used for developing future hysteroscopic sterilization techniques.

Assessment of non-gynecological symptoms before and after removal of the Essure® sterilization device: a 6-month follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Most of the clinical adverse events associated with the Essure® sterilization device have been attributed to incidents during and immediately after device placement (perforation, infection, expulsion). The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the prevalence and severity of non-gynecological clinical symptoms (e.g. memory disorders, muscle pain, and impaired vision) in patients before device placement and after device removal.

METHODS

Women who presented at least four non-gynecological clinical symptoms with the Essure® filled out a questionnaire before surgical removal of the device and then 1, 3 and 6 months afterwards. Patients with bleeding (metrorrhagia and menorrhagia) or tube perforation were excluded.

RESULTS

Fifty-two symptomatic women were included in the study and followed up for 6 months. The median (range) time interval between Essure® placement and the first clinical symptom was 13 months (1-60), and the median time interval between Essure® placement and removal was 38 months (12-72). The prevalence of clinical symptoms prior to device removal ranged from 26% (for urinary tract disorders) to 96% (for weakness). The mean±standard deviation intensity (on a 0-to-10 scale) of the symptoms before removal of the Essure® was 8.4±0.4; at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months post-removal, the values had fallen significantly to 4.2±0.6, 4±0.8, and 4.1±1, respectively (P<0.0001 for all the symptoms).

CONCLUSIONS

The observed decrease in symptom frequency and severity following Essure® removal and the persistence of this effect at 6 months suggest that the device should be removed in all symptomatic women.

A pilot study of a novel technique for hysteroscopic sterilization using the distal ends of a copper-T intrauterine device (Ostialoc)

OBJECTIVE

To describe the feasibility and effectiveness of a novel technique for Hysteroscopic sterilization using the distal ends of a copper-T intrauterine device (Ostialoc).

PATIENT AND METHODS

A pilot study included 11 cases selected and informed about the technique at a tertiary University hospital. Through hysteroscopy, the knobs with the distal 1 cm of Copper-T intrauterine devices (Ostialoc) were inserted into the interstitial part of both fallopian tubes for the tubal block. Patients were evaluated two weeks later by plain X-ray and ultrasound to ensure nonexpulsion of the Ostialoc, then every month for three successive months. The patients were scheduled for HSG at 3 months and one year after the Ostialoc placement to evaluate tubal occlusion.

RESULTS

The mean age of cases was 39.20 ± 4.09 years, mean parity was 4.48 ± 1.00, and the mean BMI was 28.92 ± 4.31 Kg/m². The mean operative time was 22.24 ± 5.63 min. The technique was feasible in all cases. The postoperative complications were present in one case suffered from pelvic pain. HSG demonstrated complete block of both fallopian tubes after three months and at one year in 100% of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Hysteroscopic sterilization using Ostialoc technique seems to be a feasible and effective technique in low resources countries.

Essure® present controversies and 5 years' learned lessons: a retrospective study with short- and long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

The risk-benefit of contraception with Essure® is being readdressed due to an increase of reports of adverse effects with this device. Our aim was to proceed to an internal quality evaluation and to identify opportunities for protocol improvement. We proceeded to a one-center, retrospective consecutive case series of women admitted for Essure® placement, from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2016 (5 years).

RESULTS

In a total of 274 women, technical difficulties were mainly unilateral, with no acute or short-term severe complications. The procedure was brief (median 3.2 min, IQR 2.5-5.2) and moderately painful (median of 4 in a 0-10 scale; IQR 3-5). At 3 months, the failure rate was 2%, with no pregnancies. Second surgery indication (< 1%) resumed to a case of nickel hypersensitivity. At 1 year, pregnancy rate was 1%. Ninety-eight percent of the patients would recommend the method.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified high patient satisfaction and low failure rates, both at short and long term. Investigation about whether some women still have patent tubes at the 3-month follow-up could lead to protocol improvement. It is important that clinicians look for second causes for adverse effects related to Essure® and avoid the erroneous indication for implant removal. Long follow-up allowed for both internal quality evaluation and clarification of misconception; it could possibly also have contributed to patient satisfaction.

Intraoperative Factors that Predict the Successful Placement of Essure Microinserts

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the number of coils visualized in the uterotubal junction at the end of hysteroscopic microinsert placement predicts successful tubal occlusion.

DESIGN

Cohort retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Department of obstetrics and gynecology in a teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifty-three women underwent tubal microinsert placement for permanent birth control from 2010 through 2014. The local institutional review board approved this study.

INTERVENTION

Three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (3D TVU) was routinely performed 3 months after hysteroscopic microinsert placement to check position in the fallopian tube.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The correlation between the number of coils visible at the uterotubal junction at the end of the hysteroscopic microinsert placement procedure and the device position on the 3-month follow-up 3D TVU in 141 patients was evaluated. The analysis included 276 microinserts placed during hysteroscopy. The median number of coils visible after the hysteroscopic procedure was 4 (interquartile range, 3-5). Devices for 30 patients (21.3%) were incorrectly positioned according to the 3-month follow-up 3D TVU, and hysterosalpingography was recommended. In those patients the median number of coils was in both the right (interquartile range, 2-4) and left (interquartile range, 1-3) uterotubal junctions. The number of coils visible at the uterotubal junction at the end of the placement procedure was the only factor that predicted whether the microinsert was well positioned at the 3-month 3D TVU confirmation (odds ratio, .44; 95% confidence interval, .28-.63). When 5 or more coils were visible, no incorrectly placed microinsert could be seen on the follow-up 3D TVU; the negative predictive value was 100%. No pregnancies were reported.

CONCLUSION

The number of coils observed at the uterotubal junction at the time of microinsert placement should be considered a significant predictive factor of accurate and successful microinsert placement.

Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a review that was first published in 2002. Female sterilisation is the most popular contraceptive method worldwide. Several techniques exist for interrupting the patency of fallopian tubes, including cutting and tying the tubes, damaging the tube using electric current, applying clips or silicone rubber rings, and blocking the tubes with chemicals or tubal inserts.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the different tubal occlusion techniques in terms of major and minor morbidity, failure rates (pregnancies), technical failures and difficulties, and women's and surgeons' satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review published in 2002 we searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). For this 2015 update, we searched POPLINE, LILACS, PubMed and CENTRAL on 23 July 2015. We used the related articles feature of PubMed and searched reference lists of newly identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different techniques for tubal sterilisation, irrespective of the route of fallopian tube access or the method of anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the original review, two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For this update, data extraction was performed by one author (TL) and checked by another (RK). We grouped trials according to the type of comparison evaluated. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) using fixed-effect methods, unless heterogeneity was high, in which case we used random-effects methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs involving 13,209 women. Most studies concerned interval sterilisation; three RCTs involving 1632 women, concerned postpartum sterilisation. Comparisons included tubal rings versus clips (six RCTs, 4232 women); partial salpingectomy versus electrocoagulation (three RCTs, 2019 women); tubal rings versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 599 women); partial salpingectomy versus clips (four RCTs, 3627 women); clips versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 206 women); and Hulka versus Filshie clips (two RCTs, 2326 women). RCTs of clips versus electrocoagulation contributed no data to the review.One year after sterilisation, failure rates were low (< 5/1000) for all methods.There were no deaths reported with any method, and major morbidity related to the occlusion technique was rare.Minor morbidity was higher with the tubal ring than the clip (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.78; participants = 842; studies = 2; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence), as were technical failures (Peto OR 3.93, 95% CI 2.43 to 6.35; participants = 3476; studies = 3; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence).Major morbidity was significantly higher with the modified Pomeroy technique than electrocoagulation (Peto OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 7.25; participants = 1905; studies = 2; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), as was postoperative pain (Peto OR 3.85, 95% CI 2.91 to 5.10; participants = 1905; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).When tubal rings were compared with electrocoagulation, postoperative pain was reported significantly more frequently for tubal rings (OR 3.40, 95% CI 1.17 to 9.84; participants = 596; studies = 2; I² = 87%; low-quality evidence).When partial salpingectomy was compared with clips, there were no major morbidity events in either group (participants = 2198, studies = 1). The frequency of minor morbidity was low and not significantly different between groups (Peto OR 7.39, 95% CI 0.46 to 119.01; participants = 193; studies = 1, low-quality evidence). Although technical failure occurred more frequently with clips (Peto OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; participants = 2198; studies = 1; moderate-quality evidence); operative time was shorter with clips than partial salpingectomy (MD 4.26 minutes, 95% CI 3.65 to 4.86; participants = 2223; studies = 2; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence).We found little evidence concerning women's or surgeon's satisfaction. No RCTs compared tubal microinserts (hysteroscopic sterilisation) or chemical inserts (quinacrine) to other methods.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tubal sterilisation by partial salpingectomy, electrocoagulation, or using clips or rings, is a safe and effective method of contraception. Failure rates at 12 months post-sterilisation and major morbidity are rare outcomes with any of these techniques. Minor complications and technical failures appear to be more common with rings than clips. Electrocoagulation may be associated with less postoperative pain than the modified Pomeroy or tubal ring methods. Further research should include RCTs (for effectiveness) and controlled observational studies (for adverse effects) on sterilisation by minimally-invasive methods, i.e. tubal inserts and quinacrine.

Initial experience with hysteroscopic tubal occlusion (Essure®)

Objective

To evaluate results of early tubal occlusions performed by hysteroscopy (Essure^®)_.

Methods

This prospective study included 38 patients, 73.7% of them were white, mean age 34.5 years, they have had on average 3 pregnancies and 2.7 of deliveries. A total of 86.8% of patients previously prepared the endometrium. All procedures were carried out at outpatient unit without anesthesia.

Results

Insertion rate of the device was 100% at a mean time of 4 minutes and 50 seconds. Based on the analogical visual scale, average pain reported was three, and 55.3% of women did not report pain after the procedure. After 3 months, 89.5% of patients were very satisfied with the method. Simple radiographs of the pelvis showed 92.1% of topical devices, and one case of unilateral expulsion had occurred. A four years follow-up did not show failure in the method.

Conclusions

Tubal occlusion through hysteroscopy at outpatient unit and without anesthesia was a quickly and well-tolerated procedure. No serious complications were seen, the success rate was high, and patients were satisfied.

Outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy: bipolar energy system (Versapoint®) versus diode laser - randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the resection of endometrial polyps with two different devices: the Versapoint biopolar electrode and the Diode Laser.

METHODS

One hundred and two patients diagnosed with endometrial polyps were randomly assigned to undergo hysteroscopic polypectomy: one group (n = 52) performed with Versapoint bipolar electrode through a 5Fr working channel and the other group with Biolitec Diode Laser (n = 50) using a specific fiber for polyps in a 7Fr working channel. All cases were managed on an outpatient basis, without anesthesia and using a rigid 30(o) hysteroscope and saline solution as a distention medium.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Complete resection rate, operative time, complications, intraoperative pain and relapse rate after three months.

RESULTS

Intraoperative pain and polyp resection time was similar in both groups. Upon second look hysteroscopy at 3-month, a higher percentage of women of the Versapoint group presented polyp relapse (32.6 versus 2.2%, p = 0.001). Elimination of the polyp after incomplete resection was higher in the Laser group. A significantly higher number of patients in the Laser group considered the procedure to be highly recommendable (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Polypectomy with Diode Laser resulted in fewer relapses and a higher procedure satisfaction rate as compared to Versapoint.

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).

Randomized comparative trial of cervical block protocols for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of polyps and myomas

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of two cervical block protocols for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of intrauterine polyps and myomas using the MyoSure^® device.

Patients and methods

This was a randomized, comparative treatment trial conducted by five private Obstetrics and Gynecology practices in the USA. Forty premenopausal women aged 18 years and older were randomized to receive either a combination para/intracervical block protocol of 37 cc local anesthetic administered at six injections sites in association with the application of topic 1% lidocaine gel, or an intracervical block protocol of 22 cc local anesthetic administered at three injections sites without topical anesthetic, for pain management during hysteroscopic removal of intrauterine polyps and/or a single type 0 or type 1 submucosal myoma ≤3 cm. The main outcomes were a composite measure of procedure-related pain and pain during the postoperative recovery period, assessed by the Wong-Baker Faces Rating Scale (0= no pain to 10= maximum pain). The lesion characteristics, procedure time, and adverse events were summarized.

Results

A total of 17 polyps and eight myomas were removed in the para/intracervical block group, with diameters of 1.3±0.5 cm and 1.8±0.8 cm, respectively. In the intracervical block group, 25 polyps with a mean diameter of 1.2±0.7 cm and 7 myomas with a mean diameter of 1.9±0.9 cm were removed. The mean tissue resection time was 1.2±2.0 minutes and 1.2±1.4 minutes for the para/intracervical and intracervical block groups, respectively. The mean composite procedure-related pain score was low for both cervical block protocols, 1.3±1.4 in the para/intracervical block group vs 2.1±1.5 in the intracervical block group. During the postoperative recovery period, the mean pain scores were 0.3±0.7 vs 1.2±1.7 for the para/intracervical and intracervical block groups, respectively. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusion

The MyoSure procedure for removal of polyps and myomas was well tolerated, with low pain scores reported for both the para/intracervical and intracervical block protocols.

Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a review that was first published in 2002. Female sterilisation is the most popular contraceptive method worldwide. Several techniques exist for interrupting the patency of fallopian tubes, including cutting and tying the tubes, damaging the tube using electric current, applying clips or silicone rubber rings, and blocking the tubes with chemicals or tubal inserts.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the different tubal occlusion techniques in terms of major and minor morbidity, failure rates (pregnancies), technical failures and difficulties, and women's and surgeons' satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review published in 2002 we searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). For this 2015 update, we searched POPLINE, LILACS, PubMed and CENTRAL on 23 July 2015. We used the related articles feature of PubMed and searched reference lists of newly identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different techniques for tubal sterilisation, irrespective of the route of fallopian tube access or the method of anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the original review, two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For this update, data extraction was performed by one author (TL) and checked by another (RK). We grouped trials according to the type of comparison evaluated. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) using fixed-effect methods, unless heterogeneity was high, in which case we used random-effects methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs involving 13,209 women. Most studies concerned interval sterilisation; three RCTs involving 1632 women, concerned postpartum sterilisation. Comparisons included tubal rings versus clips (six RCTs, 4232 women); partial salpingectomy versus electrocoagulation (three RCTs, 2019 women); tubal rings versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 599 women); partial salpingectomy versus clips (four RCTs, 3827 women); clips versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 206 women); and Hulka versus Filshie clips (two RCTs, 2326 women). RCTs of clips versus electrocoagulation contributed no data to the review.One year after sterilisation, failure rates were low (< 5/1000) for all methods.There were no deaths reported with any method, and major morbidity related to the occlusion technique was rare.Minor morbidity was statistically significantly higher with the tubal ring than the clip (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.78; participants = 842; studies = 2; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence), as were technical failures (Peto OR 3.93, 95% CI 2.43 to 6.35; participants = 3476; studies = 3; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence).Major morbidity was significantly higher with the modified Pomeroy technique than electrocoagulation (Peto OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 7.25; participants = 1905; studies = 2; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), as was postoperative pain (Peto OR 3.85, 95% CI 2.91 to 5.10; participants = 1905; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).When tubal rings were compared with electrocoagulation, postoperative pain was reported significantly more frequently for tubal rings (OR 3.40, 95% CI 1.17 to 9.84; participants = 596; studies = 2; I² = 87%; low-quality evidence).When partial salpingectomy was compared with clips, there were no major morbidity events in either group (participants = 2198, studies = 1). The frequency of minor morbidity was low and not significantly different between groups (Peto OR 7.39, 95% CI 0.46 to 119.01; participants = 193; studies = 1, low-quality evidence). Although technical failure occurred more frequently with clips (Peto OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; participants = 2198; studies = 1; moderate-quality evidence); operative time was shorter with clips than partial salpingectomy (MD 4.26 minutes, 95% CI 3.65 to 4.86; participants = 2223; studies = 2; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence).We found little evidence concerning women's or surgeon's satisfaction. No RCTs compared tubal microinserts (hysteroscopic sterilisation) or chemical inserts (quinacrine) to other methods.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tubal sterilisation by partial salpingectomy, electrocoagulation, or using clips or rings, is a safe and effective method of contraception. Failure rates at 12 months post-sterilisation and major morbidity are rare outcomes with any of these techniques. Minor complications and technical failures may be more common with rings than clips. Electrocoagulation may be associated with less postoperative pain than the modified Pomeroy or tubal ring methods. Further research should include RCTs (for effectiveness) and controlled observational studies (for adverse effects) on sterilisation by minimally-invasive methods, i.e. tubal inserts and quinacrine.

Evaluation of tubal microinserts position using 3D ultrasound and pelvic X-ray

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare three-dimensional ultrasonography (3D-US) and pelvic X-rays to assess the position of tubal sterilization microinserts.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-four patients who underwent tubal sterilization with Essure(®) microinserts in our institution were included. The microinserts'position was evaluated three months after the procedure using 3D-US and pelvic X-rays. Placement on 3D-US was binary categorized as correct or incorrect and the distance between the two devices was reported. The orientation and symmetric deployment of the microinserts and the distance between the proximal parts of the two devices was assessed on pelvic X-rays. Performance of 3D-US and pelvic X-ray were compared using Mac Nemar test. Comparison of the distance between the two devices measured on pelvic X-rays and 3D-US was made with the paired Student t test.

RESULTS

3D-US images showed microinserts in 93% (41/44). Eighty-six percent (38/44) were correctly positioned on 3D-US and 82% (36/44) on pelvic X-rays. No significant differences between the performances of the two imaging techniques were found. No significant differences for the distance between the two devices measured on pelvic X-ray and 3D-US was found.

CONCLUSION

3D-US is a simple, non-ionizing technique, which appears as a promising alternate technique to pelvic X-rays to assess the correct position of Essure(®) microinserts.

Setting up of ambulatory hysteroscopy service

There is an obvious trend towards developing ambulatory procedures in gynaecology with ambulatory hysteroscopy as its mainstay. In the recent years, the fast pace of modern technological advances in gynaecologic endoscopy, and particularly in the field of hysteroscopy, have been both thrilling and spectacular. Despite this, the uptake of operative hysteroscopy in ambulatory settings has been relatively slow. There is some apprehension amongst gynaecologists to embark on therapeutic outpatient hysteroscopy, and an organisational change is required to alter the mindset. Although there are best practice guidelines for outpatient hysteroscopy, there are unresolved issues around adequate training and accreditation of future hysteroscopists. Virtual-reality simulation training for operative hysteroscopy has shown promising preliminary results, and it is being aggressively evaluated and validated. This review article is an attempt to provide a useful practical guide to all those who wish to implement ambulatory hysteroscopy services in their outpatient departments.

A prospective observational study on tolerance and satisfaction to hepatic haemodynamic procedures

BACKGROUND

Understanding patients' attitudes to clinical experiences is essential for developing high-quality patient-centred healthcare, as a better knowledge of patients' tolerance and satisfaction might allow implementing measures that ameliorate comfort, care and use of resources.

AIMS

We aimed to describe patients' tolerance and satisfaction to invasive hepatic haemodynamic procedures, and to investigate which factors might influence patients' perspective in this field.

METHODS

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaires regarding pain and duration (for tolerance), and comfort and general handling (for satisfaction) were prospectively administered to all consecutive patients (N = 327) submitted to hepatic haemodynamic procedures (N = 355) in a tertiary care setting during 2011. VAS scores ranged between 0 and 100 mm and items were defined as excellent if <10 mm; good if 10-20 mm and inadequate if >20 mm. Clinical and laboratory data were also collected.

RESULTS

Satisfaction was excellent in >95% of cases (mean 2 ± 5 mm, median 0 mm) and average tolerance was good (15 ± 18 mm; median 6 mm). A percentage of 59% of patients had excellent tolerance, 9% good and 32% had inadequate tolerance. Duration and complexity of the procedure and limited operator's experience were associated with inadequate tolerance on univariate analysis; duration of the procedure remained the only independent factor associated with inadequate tolerance on multivariate analysis. Procedures lasting <35 min had a >80% probability of being well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction and tolerance to hepatic haemodynamic procedures are excellent and good respectively. Tolerance was decreased in long procedures; hence reducing as much as possible the duration of the procedures might further improve tolerance.

[Evaluation of satisfaction after hysteroscopic tubal ligation. About a study from the CHU of Besançon]

OBJECTIVE

The Essure(®) system is a hysteroscopic sterilization method. The purpose of our study was to retrospectively evaluate the sterilization procedure with Essure(®) devices without anesthesia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The descriptive study included all tubal sterilizations with Essure(®) devices performed without anesthesia, with MEOPA, from January 1st, 2013 till February 28th, 2014 in the CHU of Besançon. The evaluation of the global satisfaction of the patients was collected by telephone survey.

RESULTS

A hundred and forty-three patients benefited from Essure(®) without anesthesia during the period of study in the CHU of Besançon and among them, 120 patients answered the telephone survey questionnaire. The average age was of 41.3 years. As regards the satisfaction and the tolerance, 89.2% of the patients declared to be globally satisfied by this procedure and 95.8% would recommend it to a friend. Indeed, 66.6% of the patients declared to have felt no pain or moderate pain. Furthermore, the MEOPA was well tolerated at 79.9% of the patients. As regards the procedure of Essure(®) inserts without anesthesia the rate of failure was 9.2% and at 3 months the radiological control was satisfactory in 94.5% of the patients.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The tubaire sterilization by implants Essure(®) is a fast and effective procedure. Our study shows, that at present, this technique can be realized without anesthesia, during a dedicated consultation, with an important rate of global satisfaction of the patients. It thus allows to decrease the number of hospitalization in ambulatory surgery and to decrease the cost of this intervention.

Tubal sterilization: pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic sterilization in France, 2006-2010

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rates of pregnancy among women who underwent Essure hysteroscopic sterilization versus tubal ligation in France between 2006 and 2010.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Hospital care in France (nationwide). Anonymised database of all hospital discharge summaries in France.

PATIENTS

Recruitment was based on procedure codes in the national database of hospital discharge summaries. The study included all women who underwent tubal sterilization by Essure microinserts or by tubal ligation and subsequently were hospitalised either for all unexpected pregnancies related diagnosis (e.g., miscarriage, legal abortion, or delivery) or for pregnancies following reversal microsurgery or invitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

During the study period, French hospitals performed 109,277 tubal sterilization procedures: 39,169 Essure sterilizations and 70,108 laparoscopic tubal ligations. The respective indication of both techniques depended on the surgeons' skill. The median age of the two populations was similar, 41 years (range 28-52) for Essure patients and 40 years (range 27-54) for those undergoing tubal ligation (p=0.42). A Cox model has been performed. Following sterilization, after adjustment on age Essure patients became pregnant at a significantly lower rate than laparoscopic ligation patients 0.36% versus 0.46%, respectively (HR=0.62 (040-096)), and their pregnancy rate of post-sterilization procedure was significantly lower (reversal microsurgeries: 0.02% versus 0.19% (p<0.001), IVF treatment: 0.08% versus 0.27%) (p<0.001). The pregnancy rates after IVF were 12.5% and 5.35%, respectively, and 0% and 11.36% after tubal repair.

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study of tubal sterilization demonstrates that Essure was associated with lower rates of pregnancy versus tubal ligation.

Concomitant hysteroscopic endometrial ablation and Essure procedure: feasibility, efficacy and satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

Hysteroscopic endometrial destruction procedures for abnormal uterine bleeding are an alternative to hysterectomy. Such procedures are not contraceptive and are performed on fertile patients, requiring long-term contraception. This is the first study evaluating long-term results of a combined procedure associating endometrial destruction and concomitant hysteroscopic tubal sterilization by Essure(®) micro-inserts. Our goal is to evaluate efficacy of endometrial destruction as well as hysteroscopic sterilization and satisfaction after a combined procedure in the case of abnormal uterine bleeding in non-menopausal patients.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective study (Canadian task force II-2) that includes 131 patients operated with combined endometrial destruction and hysteroscopic tubal sterilization between 2002 and 2011 at our university hospital. The patients were contacted to answer a questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed with SAS© version 9.2. (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients out of 131 could be reached. The mean follow-up was of 37.8 months (min=8, max=87, SD=6.2). Thirty-eight patients (29%) were lost to follow-up. Essure(®) micro-inserts introduction success rate (evaluated on 131 patients) was 95.8%, and their position was appropriate in 81.1% of the 106 patients with position control. Efficacy of the procedure on the haemorrhagic symptoms (evaluated on 93 patients) was 80.6%. Twelve patients (12.9%) underwent a hysterectomy, 7 of which (58.3%) were a direct consequence of treatment failure. No pregnancies were reported. Satisfaction rate was of 90.3%.

CONCLUSION

Inadequate position rates of the micro-inserts after 3 months seem somewhat above literature findings, though no pregnancy has been reported. However, recurrent bleeding symptoms and hysterectomy rates are consistent with those observed after an endometrial destruction procedure alone. Limitations are the limited number of patients, the bias inherent to retrospective studies (lost of follow-up, selection bias). The concomitant endometrial destruction and tubal sterilization by micro-inserts is a safe and efficient procedure.

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.

Efficacy of Essure hysteroscopic sterilization--5 years follow up of 1200 women

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of the Essure hysteroscopic birth control device after 5 years follow up.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of case series.

SETTING

Outpatient hysteroscopy facility in a large teaching hospital.

SUBJECTS

One-thousand three-hundred and twenty-one women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure device (Conceptus, Inc., Mountain View, CA) between January 2003 and May 2005.

INTERVENTION(S)

Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization using Essure system.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Efficacy/effectiveness, failure rate.

RESULTS

Satisfactory insertion was accomplished in the first attempt in 1166 women (97.16%). After the second attempt, successful insertion rate rise to 98.6%. (n = 31, 2.6%). Three pregnancies had been reported after 5 years follow up, which implies an overall absolute rate of 0.25%. This represents a Pearl index of 0.05 after 72,000 months of surveillance. All of them occurred in the first year of use of the microinsert. There has been no unintended pregnancy in the next 4 years.

CONCLUSION(S)

Essure has the lowest Pearl index never published being the most effective permanent birth control system to date. Unintended pregnancies tend to occur in the first year after the insertion, and can be avoided encouraging women to accomplish the protocol.

Hysteroscopic sterilization of patient with intrauterine device Mirena®

Tubal sterilization is the definitive procedure most often used worldwide to control fecundity. Laparoscopic ligature is safe, but invasive and with possible surgical and anesthetic risks. The hysteroscopic approach enables tubal occlusion at outpatient's setting without the need of incisions or anesthesia. A microdevice (Essure^®) is inserted directly into the tubes and its polyethelene fibers cause obstruction of tubes in about three months. During this period, it is recommended that patients continue the use of a temporary birth control method. Several women use the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, which is called in the market as Mirena^®. This report evaluated the possibility of inserting Essure^® without remove the intrauterine device; patient tolerance to the procedure was also assessed. The tubal device was successfully placed in the patient without the need to remove Mirena^®. After three months the intrauterine device was removed with no intercurrent events.

Endometrial preparation with desogestrel before Essure hysteroscopic sterilization: preliminary study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of desogestrel on endometrial preparation for transcervical sterilization using the Essure device.

DESIGN

Prospective nonrandomized clinical study (Canadian Task Force classification II-3).

SETTING

Acute-care university-affiliated hospital in Barcelona, Spain.

PATIENTS

Women undergoing sterilization using the Essure device between January 2010 and January 2011.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were offered desogestrel, 75 μg/d, for 6 weeks before the procedure. Sixteen who accepted were included in the desogestrel group, and 18 who refused were allocated to the no-treatment group. Endometrial biopsy samples were also obtained.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In women who received desogestrel, decidual transformation was observed in eight, glandular atrophy in three, and proliferative endometrium in five. In the no-treatment group, two women had menstruation, nine had proliferative endometrium, and seven had secretory endometrium. In the desogestrel group, the procedure was successful in all women. In the no-treatment group, the procedure was cancelled in two women because of menstruation and in four women with secretory endometrium in whom the tubal ostia were difficult to visualize because of endometrial thickness and bleeding. The median (interquartile range, 25th-75th percentile) duration of the procedure was shorter in the desogestrel group than in the no-treatment group (7 [6-7] minutes vs 8 [7-12] minutes; p = .002).

CONCLUSION

Desogestrel, 75 μg/d, could be an alternative to combined hormonal contraception before placement of Essure inserts, facilitating the procedure and serving as a contraceptive method during the following 12 weeks until occlusion of the tubes.

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.