Fallopian Tube Occlusion

  • Elizabeth Ann Ignacio
  • Nadia J. Khati
  • John C. Lipman
  • Prasanna Vasudevan


Presently, there are a multitude of options available to women to control their fertility, depending on changing needs over a lifetime, as well as their health and specific medical conditions. Temporary choices include barrier methods, e.g., the female and male condoms, oral contraceptives, and intrauterine devices. Permanent solutions include sterilization surgery for men or women and, more recently, noninvasive fallopian tube occlusion for women. The efficacy, risks, side effect profile, and cost for each form of contraception are important considerations for each woman. There are many choices for women to consider for contraception. In the United States alone, greater than 11 million women have chosen tubal sterilization as their contraceptive method of choice, with greater than 300,000 women choosing transcervical fallopian tube occlusion [7]. While LTL is the gold standard, more patients will continue to opt for noninvasive techniques such as transcervical fallopian tube occlusion as a simple, safe, and effective solution.


Fallopian Tube Fluoroscopic Guidance Uterine Cavity Delivery Catheter Uterine Perforation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Frye CA. An overview of oral contraceptives: mechanism of action and clinical use. Neurology. 2006;66:S29–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Macisaac L, Espey E. Intrauterine contraception: the pendulum swings back. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2007;34(1):91–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenberg JA. Hysteroscopic sterilization: history and current methods. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;1(3):113–21.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abbott J. Transcervical sterilization. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:325–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Connor VF. Essure: a review six years later. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16(3):282–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith RD. Contemporary hysteroscopic methods for female sterilization. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2010;108:79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Theroux R. The hysteroscopic approach to sterilization. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;37:356–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palmer SN, Greenberg JA. Transcervical sterilization: a comparison of Essure permanent birth control system and Adiana permanent contraception system. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(2):84–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kerin JF, Cooper JM, Price T, et al. Hysteroscopic sterilization using a micro-insert device: results of a multicentre Phase II study. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1223–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Essure physician training manual: HSG protocol. San Carlos, CA Conceptus, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McSwain H, Shaw C, Hall LD. Placement of the Essure permanent birth control device with fluoroscopic guidance: a novel method for tubal sterilization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16(7):1007–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weston G, Bowditch J. Office ultrasound should be the first-line investigation for confirmation of correct ESSURE placement. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45(4):312–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Teoh M, Meagher S, Kovacs G. Ultrasound detection of the Essure permanent birth control device: a case series. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;43(5):378–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Veersema S, Vleugels MP, Timmermans A, Brölmann HA. Follow-up of successful bilateral placement of Essure microinserts with ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(6):1733–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Legendre G, Gervaise A, Levaillant JM, et al. Assessment of three-dimensional ultrasound examination classification to check the position of the tubal sterilization microinsert. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2732–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooper JM, Carignan CS, Cher D, Kerin JF. Microinsert nonincisional hysteroscopic sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:59–67.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vancaillie TG, Anderson TL, Johns DA. A 12-month prospective evaluation of transcervical sterilization using implantable polymer matrices. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1270–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Devices and Radiological Health, Guidance for Industry - Uniform Contraceptive Labeling, July 23, 1998,, accessed on 09/05/2011.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Ann Ignacio
    • 1
  • Nadia J. Khati
    • 2
  • John C. Lipman
    • 3
  • Prasanna Vasudevan
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional RadiologyThe George Washington University Medical CenterWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Division of Body ImagingThe George Washington University Medical CenterWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Interventional RadiologyAtlanta Interventional Institute, Emory Adventist HospitalAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyThe George Washington University Medical CenterWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations