Association of Hysteroscopic vs Laparoscopic Sterilization With Procedural, Gynecological, and Medical Outcomes
- PMID: 29362796
- PMCID: PMC5833563
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.21269
Association of Hysteroscopic vs Laparoscopic Sterilization With Procedural, Gynecological, and Medical Outcomes
Abstract
Importance: Safety of hysteroscopic sterilization has been recently questioned following reports of general symptoms such as allergy, tiredness, and depression in addition to associated gynecological results such as pelvic pain, perforation of fallopian tubes or uterus, and unwanted pregnancy.
Objective: To compare the risk of reported adverse events between hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilization.
Design, setting, and participants: French nationwide cohort study using the national hospital discharge database linked to the health insurance claims database. Women aged 30 to 54 years receiving a first hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization between 2010 and 2014 were included and were followed up through December 2015.
Exposures: Hysteroscopic sterilization vs laparoscopic sterilization.
Main outcomes and measures: Risks of procedural complications (surgical and medical) and of gynecological (sterilization failure that includes salpingectomy, second sterilization procedure, or pregnancy; pregnancy; reoperation) and medical outcomes (all types of allergy; autoimmune diseases; thyroid disorder; use of analgesics, antimigraines, antidepressants, benzodiazepines; outpatient visits; sickness absence; suicide attempts; death) that occurred within 1 and 3 years after sterilization were compared using inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox models.
Results: Of the 105 357 women included (95.5% of eligible participants; mean age, 41.3 years [SD, 3.7 years]), 71 303 (67.7% ) underwent hysteroscopic sterilization, and 34 054 (32.3%) underwent laparoscopic sterilization. During the hospitalization for sterilization, risk of surgical complications for hysteroscopic sterilization was lower: 0.13% for hysteroscopic sterilization vs 0.78% for laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted risk difference [RD], -0.64; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.60) and was lower for medical complications: 0.06% vs 0.11% (adjusted RD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). During the first year after sterilization, 4.83% of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization had a higher risk of sterilization failure than the 0.69% who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 7.11; 95% CI, 5.92 to 8.54; adjusted RD, 4.23 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 3.40 to 5.22). Additionally, 5.65% of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization required gynecological reoperation vs 1.76% of women who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted HR, 3.26; 95% CI, 2.90 to 3.67; adjusted RD, 4.63 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 3.38 to 4.75); these differences persisted after 3 years, although attenuated. Hysteroscopic sterilization was associated with a lower risk of pregnancy within the first year of the procedure but was not significantly associated with a difference in risk of pregnancy by the third year (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83-1.30; adjusted RD, 0.01 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.07). Risks of medical outcomes were not significantly increased with hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization.
Conclusions and relevance: Among women undergoing first sterilization, the use of hysteroscopic sterilization was significantly associated with higher risk of gynecological complications over 1 year and over 3 years than was laparoscopic sterilization. Risk of medical outcomes was not significantly increased over 1 year or over 3 years. These findings do not support increased medical risks associated with hysteroscopic sterilization.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures
Comment in
-
Evaluating the Long-term Safety of Hysteroscopic Sterilization.JAMA. 2018 Jan 23;319(4). doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21268. JAMA. 2018. PMID: 29362776 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Gynecologic Outcomes After Hysteroscopic and Laparoscopic Sterilization Procedures.Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Oct;128(4):843-852. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001615. Obstet Gynecol. 2016. PMID: 27607866
-
The feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;217(5):570.e1-570.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.011. Epub 2017 Jul 27. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017. PMID: 28757140
-
Tubal sterilization: pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic sterilization in France, 2006-2010.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Sep;180:133-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.04.043. Epub 2014 May 14. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014. PMID: 24993770
-
Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization: an evidence-based analysis.Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013 Oct 1;13(21):1-35. eCollection 2013. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013. PMID: 24228084 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Comparing Essure® and Tubal Ligation to Prevent Pregnancy [Internet].Washington (DC): Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); 2021 Oct. Washington (DC): Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); 2021 Oct. PMID: 39236206 Free Books & Documents. Review.
Cited by
-
Long-Term Prognosis of Patients With Myocarditis Attributed to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 Infection, or Conventional Etiologies.JAMA. 2024 Aug 26;332(16):1367-77. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.16380. Online ahead of print. JAMA. 2024. PMID: 39186694
-
Legal medicine aspects of female sterilization: our experience.Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Jul 11;10:1198668. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1198668. eCollection 2023. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023. PMID: 37497276 Free PMC article.
-
Effectiveness of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1-S vaccines against severe covid-19 outcomes in a nationwide mass vaccination setting: cohort study.BMJ Med. 2022 Jun 13;1(1):e000104. doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2021-000104. eCollection 2022. BMJ Med. 2022. PMID: 36936561 Free PMC article.
-
JAK inhibitors and risk of major cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism: a self-controlled case series study.Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 Dec;78(12):1981-1990. doi: 10.1007/s00228-022-03402-2. Epub 2022 Oct 26. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2022. PMID: 36284012
-
Association of Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases With Hospitalization for COVID-19: A Nationwide Matched Population-Based Cohort Study.J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Jun 21;11(12):e023357. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.023357. Epub 2022 Jun 14. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022. PMID: 35699173 Free PMC article.
References
-
- McCarthy M. US to require safety warnings for Essure sterilization device. BMJ. 2016;352:i1283. - PubMed
-
- US Food and Drug Administration FDA activities: Essure. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/Implants.... Accessed May 10, 2017.
-
- Summary safety review—ESSURE permanent birth control system—assessing the risk of complications and the potential need for device removal. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/me.... Published May 25, 2016. Accessed January 4, 2018.
-
- Van Drongelen AW, van Elk M, Moltó-Puigmartí C. Janssen SWJ Analysis of complaints in the Netherlands on Essure. http://www.rivm.nl/Documenten_en_publicaties/Wetenschappelijk/Rapporten/.... Accessed May 10, 2017.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
