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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Engender Health. Female Sterilization. Contraceptive sterilization: global issues and trends. New York: Engender Health; 2002.
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.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Male and female sterilisation. London: RCOG Press; 2004.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Filshie GM. Long term experience with the Filshie clip. Gynaecol Forum. 2002;7(3):7–10.
Penfield AJ. The Filshieclip for female sterilization: a review of world experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:485–9.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0794-6