Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T11:22:33.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 13 - Hysteroscopic Sterilisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2020

Mary E. Connor
Affiliation:
Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield
T. Justin Clark
Affiliation:
Birmingham Women’s Hospital
Get access

Summary

Hysteroscopic sterilisation (HS) is a permanent method of contraception and is only suitable for women who no longer desire fertility. The method works by preventing fertilisation of the egg by permanently blocking the passage of sperm through the fallopian tubes. This is achieved by placing occlusive micro-inserts in the proximal section of each fallopian tubal lumen using transcervical hysteroscopy.

A safe, simple and highly effective transcervical sterilisation approach has long been sought. In 1878, Kocks attempted to blindly occlude the proximal segment of each fallopian tube by transcervical insertion of electrodes. In 1927, Mickulicz-Radecki and Freund suggested the use of a hysteroscope for the purpose of female sterilisation. In 1934, Schroeder performed the transcervical hysteroscopic sterilisation using electrocoagulation. Since then, various destructive techniques involving intratubal injection of sclerosing agents such as quinacrine, tissue adhesives or cryosurgery, and mechanical tubal occlusive techniques involving placement of various plugs or devices at the level of the tubal ostium, have been explored.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, J. Transcervical sterilization. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 19: 743–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valle, RF, Carignan, CS, Wright, TC. Tissue response to the STOP microcoil transcervical permanent contraceptive device: results from a prehysterectomy study. Fertil Steril 2001; 76: 974–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mao, J, Pfeifer, S, Schlegel, P, Art Sedrakyan, A. Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study. BMJ 2015; 351: h5162.Google Scholar
Thurkow, A. AltaSeal hysteroscopic sterilization: the new challenger to Essure? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 18(6): S38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gannon, MJ. First clinical results of new hysteroscopic sterilisation device: Altaseal. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2012; 119: S190.Google Scholar
Famuyide, AO, Hopkins, MR, El-Nashar, SA, et al. Hysteroscopic sterilization in women with severe cardiac disease: experience at a tertiary center. Mayo Clin Proc 2008; 83: 431–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMartin, K. Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2013; 13: 135.Google Scholar
Rios-Castillo, JE, Velasco, E, Arjona-Berral, JE, et al. Efficacy of Essure hysteroscopic sterilization: 5 years follow up of 1200 women. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013; 29: 580–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, MG, Nichols, JE, Levy, B, Vleugels, MP, Veersema, S. Hysteroscopic sterilization: ten-year retrospective analysis of worldwide pregnancy reports. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 21: 11.Google Scholar
Jost, S, Huchon, C, Legendre, G, et al. Essure® permanent birth control effectiveness: a seven-year survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 168: 134–7.Google Scholar
Levy, B, Levie, MD, Childers, ME. A summary of reported pregnancies after hysteroscopic sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007; 14: 271–4.Google Scholar
Arjona, JE, Mino, M, Cordon, J, et al. Satisfaction and tolerance with office hysteroscopic tubal sterilization. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: 1182–6.Google Scholar
Duffy, S, Marsh, F, Rogerson, L, et al. Female sterilisation: a cohort controlled comparative study of ESSURE versus laparoscopic sterilisation. BJOG 2005; 112: 1522–8.Google Scholar
Hurskainen, R, Hovi, SL, Gissler, M, et al. Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization: a systematic review of the Essure system. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 1619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gariepy, AM, Creinin, MD, Smith, KJ, Xu, X. Probability of pregnancy after sterilization: a comparison of hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic sterilization. Contraception 2014; 90: 174–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, H, Legendre, G, Blein, C, Lamarsalle, L, Panel, P. Tubal sterilization: pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic sterilization in France, 2006–2010. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 180: 133–7.Google Scholar
Antoun, L, Smith, P, Gupta, JK, Clark, TJ. The feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217: 570.e16.Google Scholar
Levie, M, Weiss, G, Kaiser, B, Daif, J, Chudnoff, SG. Analysis of pain and satisfaction with office-based hysteroscopic sterilization. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 1189–94.Google Scholar
Sinha, D, Kalathy, V, Gupta, JK, Clark, TJ. The feasibility, success and patient satisfaction associated with outpatient hysteroscopic sterilisation. BJOG 2007; 114: 676–83.Google Scholar
Thiel, J, Suchet, I, Tyson, N, Price, P. Outcomes in the ultrasound follow-up of the Essure micro-insert: complications and proper placement. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011; 33: 134–8.Google Scholar
Cooper, JM. Hysteroscopic sterilization. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1992; 35: 282–98.Google Scholar
Kerin, JF, Munday, DN, Ritossa, MG, Pesce, A, Rosen, D. Essure hysteroscopic sterilization: results based on utilizing a new coil catheter delivery system. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2004; 11: 388–93.Google Scholar
Povedano, B, Arjona, JE, Velasco, E, et al. Complications of hysteroscopic Essure(®) sterilisation: report on 4306 procedures performed in a single centre. BJOG 2012; 119: 795–9.Google Scholar
Cooper, JM, Carignan, CS, Cher, D, Kerin, JF. Microinsert nonincisional hysteroscopic sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 5967.Google ScholarPubMed
Panel, P, Grosdemouge, I. Predictive factors of Essure implant placement failure: prospective, multicenter study of 495 patients. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 2934.Google Scholar
Readman, E, Maher, PJ. Pain relief and outpatient hysteroscopy: a literature review. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2004; 11: 315–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yunker, AC, Ritch, JM, Robinson, EF, Golish, CT. Incidence and risk factors for chronic pelvic pain after hysteroscopic sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: 390–4.Google Scholar
Jain, P, Clark, TJ. Removal of Essure device 4 years post-procedure: a rare case. J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 31: 271–2.Google Scholar
Alcantara, IL, SRezai, S, Kirby, C, et al. Essure surgical removal and subsequent resolution of chronic pelvic pain: a case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Obstet and Gyn 2016; 2016: 6961202.Google Scholar
Albright, CM, Frishman, GN, Bhagavath, B. Surgical aspects of removal of Essure microinsert. Contraception 2013; 88: 334–6.Google Scholar
Chudnoff, S, Einstein, M, Levie, M. Paracervical block efficacy in office hysteroscopic sterilization: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 2634.Google Scholar
Scarabin, C, Dhainaut, C. The ESTHYME study. Women’s satisfaction after hysteroscopic sterilization (Essure micro-insert). A retrospective multicenter survey. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2007; 35: 1123–8.Google Scholar
Jan, A, Crean, P, Bullesfeld, L, et al. First clinical experience with Celt ACD®: a femoral arterial puncture closure device. J Interv Cardiol 2013; 26: 417–24.Google Scholar
Santonen, T, Stockmann-Juvala, H, Zitting, A. Review on Toxicity of Stainless Steel. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2010.Google Scholar
Erdmann, N, Bondarenko, A, Hewicker-Trautwein, M. Evaluation of the soft tissue biocompatibility of MgCa0.8 and surgical steel 316L in vivo: a comparative study in rabbits. Biomed Eng Online 2010; 9: 63.Google Scholar
Raval, A, Choubey, A, Engineer, C, Kothwala, D. Development and assessment of 316LVM cardiovascular stents. Mater Sci Eng A 2004; 386: 331–43.Google Scholar
Coleman, JE, Bongers, M, Veersema, S, Thurkow, A, Gannon, MJ. Development and initial clinical experience with AltaSeal®: a novel hysteroscopically placed permanent contraception system. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 2017; 6: 7481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×