Skip to main content
Log in

Falope Rings or Modified Pomeroy’s Technique for Concurrent Tubal Sterilization

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Sterilization at caesarean section is usually performed by the modified Pomeroy’s technique. Application of Falope rings and Filshie clips may also be used for tubal sterilization at caesarean section, and these techniques are also used during laparoscopy or minilaparotomy.

Objectives

The main objective of the study was to evaluate the failure rates, complications, technical difficulties and reversibility of the Falope ring application for tubal sterilization as compared to the traditional modified Pomeroy’s technique used during caesarean sections.

Methodology

Five hundred multigravid women who underwent caesarean section for various causes and wanted concurrent tubal sterilization were recruited in the study. Two hundred and fifty women underwent tubal sterilization by Falope ring application and the other 250 by modified Pomeroy’s technique. Follow-up period ranged from 3 to 42 months. These patients’ names were checked against the antenatal booking register, the operating theatre register in case of ectopic pregnancies and a termination of pregnancy register to recognize failed sterilization.

Results

Among the 250 women who underwent Falope ring application, no major complications were noted. In the other group, women who underwent tubal sterilization by modified Pomeroy’s technique, there was one woman with serious complication, ectopic pregnancy. Falope ring application was an easy procedure to perform and also less time-consuming than modified Pomeroy’s technique.

Conclusion

Falope ring sterilization is simple, effective and safe, and the rate of subsequent pregnancy is lower than with conventional modified Pomeroy’s technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Engender Health. Female Sterilization. Contraceptive sterilization: global issues and trends. New York: Engender Health; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lawrie TA, Nardin JM, Kulier R, Boulvain M. Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation. Cochrane Database SystRev. 2011;16(2):CD003034. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003034.pub2.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Male and female sterilisation. London: RCOG Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nwagbara PN, Stibbe HM, Browning AJ, et al. Reversal of female sterilisation experience in a district general hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;17:293–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM. The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the US collaborative review of sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:1161–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kohaut BA, Musselman BL, Sanchez-Ramos L et al. Randomized trial to compare perioperative outcomes of Filshie clip versus pomeroy technique for postpartum and intraoperative caesarean tubal sterilization: a pilot study. Contraception. 2004;69:267–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM. US collaborative review of sterilization working group. the risk of ectopic pregnancy after tubal sterilization. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:762–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Filshie GM. Long term experience with the Filshie clip. Gynaecol Forum. 2002;7(3):7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Penfield AJ. The Filshieclip for female sterilization: a review of world experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:485–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chi IC, Petta CA, McPheeters M. A review of safety, efficacy, pros and cons, and issues of puerperal tubal sterilization—an update. Adv Contracept. 1995;11:187–206.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priyankur Roy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest involved within the authors of the study.

Informed Consent

Written informed consent has been obtained from all the patients before they were enrolled into the study.

Additional information

Leelavathi Basava is a Professor and Head of the Unit; Priyankur Roy is a Postgraduate Student; V. Anusha Priya is a Postgraduate Student; Shubhashri Srirama is a Postgraduate Student, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, JSS Medical College and Hospital, Mysore, India.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basava, L., Roy, P., Anusha Priya, V. et al. Falope Rings or Modified Pomeroy’s Technique for Concurrent Tubal Sterilization. J Obstet Gynecol India 66 (Suppl 1), 198–201 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0794-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0794-6

Keywords

Navigation