Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Female Tubal Sterilization

Traditional and Research Methods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Handbook of Contraception

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Practice ((CCP))

Abstract

The need for an easy, safe, effective, and inexpensive long-term method of preventing pregnancy has been sought for decades and is especially needed in the developing world. The safety and efficacy of female tubal sterilization have made it one of the most commonly performed operations. Although male sterilization is faster, safer and cheaper, tubal sterilization of women allows them to control their reproduction personally. Although the ideal method of sterilization has not been found and although the repetitive promises of a safe and effective hysteroscopic approach have been met with disappointment, continuing research remains focused upon identifying a technique which will permit the moving of female sterilization from an expensive, complex operating room procedure utilizing general anesthesia to one performed under local anesthesia in an office setting. Future research will focus upon finding less complex methods which may be performed by paramedical personnel, methods which are reversible, methods which reduce or prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, and methods which may be employed at any time in a menstrual cycle and without regard to the patient’s pregnancy status.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Suggested Reading

  • Camara S, de Castro Coelho F, Freitas C, et al. Essure present controversies and 5 years’ learned lessons: a retrospective study with short- and long-term follow-up. Gynecol Surg. 2017;14:20–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels K, Daugherty J, Jones J, et al. (2015) Current contraceptive use and variation by selected characteristics among women aged 15-44: United States, 2011-2013. Natl Health Stat Report 86: 1-14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gannon M, Collins C, Crinion D, et al. (2017) AltaSeal treatment for hydrosalpinx before in vitro fertilisation. Presented at the RCOG World Congress 2017 In Cape Town, South Africa, 20–22 March 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro M, Nichols J, Levy B, et al. Hysteroscopic sterilization: ten-year retrospective analysis of worldwide pregnancy reports. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;21:245–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shreffler K, Greil AL, McQuillan J. Responding to infertility: lessons from a growing body of research and suggested guidelines for practice. Fam Relat. 2017;66:644–58.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thurkow AL. Hysteroscopy and contraception: an overview. Chap. 31. In: Tinelli A, Pacheco LA, Haiimovich S, editors. Hysteroscopy. Switzerland: Springer; 2018. p. 302–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Of the 19 women with unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinges, 18 had successful placement of the AltaSeal device prior to undergoing in vitro fertilization. Tubal obstruction was proven by HSG 1 day and again 12 weeks after hysteroscopy. 8/18 women conceived (26% of IVF attempts) and 7 delivered.

    Google Scholar 

  • Of the 18 women undergoing a total of 31 IVF cycles after AltaSeal insertion, 8 (45% of women and 26% of IVF cycle attempts) conceived and 7 delivered live births (39% women and 23% of IVF cycle attempts.

    Google Scholar 

References

  1. Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 & 2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2006;38:90–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Alkema L, et al. Global, regional, and subregional trends in unintended pregnancy and its outcomes from 1990 to 2014: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6:e380–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Daniels K, Abma JC. (2018) current contraceptive status among women aged 15–49: United States, 2015-2017. NCHS Data Brief. 2018;327:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Daniels K, Daugherty J, Jones J, et al. Current contraceptive use and variation by selected characteristics among women aged 15-44: United States. Nat Health Statistics Reports. 2011-2013;86:1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  5. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division P. World Contraceptive Patterns Wall Chart. 2013:2013.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Li H, Mitra M, Wu JP, et al. Female sterilization and cognitive disability in the United States, 2011-2015. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:559–64.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shreffler KM, McQuillan J, Greil AL, et al. Surgical sterilization, regret and race: contemporary patterns. Soc Sci Res. 2014;50:31–45.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sterilization of women: ethical issues and considerations. Committee Opinion Number. 2017;695:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kavanaugh ML, Frohwirth L, Jerman J, et al. (2013) long-acting reversible contraception for adolescents and young adults: patient and provider perspectives. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2013;26:86–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Committee opinion number 121. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:184–96.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eeckhaut MC. Marital status and female and male contraceptive sterilization in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1509–15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Miracle-McMahill HE, Calle EE, Kosinski AS, et al. Tubal ligation and fatal ovarian cancer in a large prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145:349–57.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Seibel-Seamon J, Visintine JF, Leiby BE, et al. Factors predictive for failure to perform postpartum tubal ligations following vaginal delivery. J Reprod Med. 2009;54:160–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wolfe KK, Wilson MD, Hou MY, et al. An updated assessment of postpartum sterilization fulfillment after vaginal delivery. Contraception. 2017;96:41–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Boardman LA, DeSimone M, Allen RH. Barriers to completion of desired postpartum sterilization. R I Med. 2013;96:32–4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Zite N, Wuellner S, Gilliam M. Failure to obtain desired postpartum sterilization: risk and predictors. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:794–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zite N, Wuellner S, Gilliam M. Barriers to obtaining a desired postpartum tubal sterilization. Contraception. 2006;73:404–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pati S, Cullins V. Female Sterilization: Evidence. Obstet Gynecol Clinics NA. 2000;27:459–899.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tourgeman DE, Bhaumik M, Cook GC, et al. Pregnancy rates following fimbriectomy reversal via neosalpingostomy: a 10-year retrospective analysis. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:1041–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Camus E, Poncelet C, Goffinet F, et al. Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a metaanalysis of published comparative studies. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1243–429.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hartfield VJ. Female sterilization by the vaginal route: a positive reassessment and comparison of 4 tubal occlusion methods. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;33:408–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mazdisnian F, Palmieri A, Hakakha B, et al. Office microlaparoscopy for female sterilization under local anesthesia. A cost and clinical analysis. J Reprod Med. 2002;47:97–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, et al. The risk of ectopic pregnancy after tubal sterilization. New Engl J Med. 1997;336:762–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chi I-C, Laufe LE, Atwood RJ. Ectopic pregnancy following female sterilization. Adv Plan Parenthood. 1981;16:52–5.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Malacova E, Kemp A, Hart R, et al. Long-term risk of ectopic pregnancy varies by method of tubal sterilization: a whole-population study. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:728–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Siegler AM, Hulka J, Peretz A. Reversibility of female sterilization. Fertil Steril. 1985;43:499–510.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Garcia FAR, Childers JM. Laparoscopic bowel injuries among gynecologic patients: a critical review. Diag Ther Endosc. 1997;3:241–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Soderstrom RM. Bowel injury litigation after laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1993;1:74–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Thompson BH, Wheeless CR. Gastrointestinal complications of laparoscopy sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1973;41:669–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Deaths following female sterilization with unipolar electrocoagulation devices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1981;30:149–51.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Soderstrom R. Electrical safety in laparoscopy. In: Phillips JM, editor. Endoscopy in gynecology. American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists: Downey, CA; 1978. p. 306.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gunston KD, Van Coeverden de Groot HA, Goldberg GL, et al. Macroscopic and microscopic changes in the fallopian tube after bipolar cauterization. S Afr Med J. 1983;63:518–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Semm K. Thermocoagulation by endocoagulator. A new method for pelviscopic sterilization. Gynecologie. 1976;27:279–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yoon IB, Wheeless CR, King TM. A preliminary report on a new laparoscopic sterilization approach: the silicone rubber band technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974;120:132–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hulka JF, Omran K, Phillips JM, et al. Sterilization by spring clip: a report of 1,000 cases with a 6 month follow-up. Fertil Steril. 1973;26:1122–5.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chi IC, Laufe LE, Gardner SD, et al. An epidemiologic study of risk factors associated with pregnancy following female sterilizations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980;136:768–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Filshie GM, Casey D, Pogmore JR, et al. The titanium/silicone rubber clip for female sterilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981;88:655–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Townsend DE, McCausland V, McCausland A, et al. Post-ablation-tubal sterilization syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82:422–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kreider SE, Starcher R, Hoppe J, et al. Endometrial ablation: is tubal ligation a risk factor for hysterectomy. J Minim Invasiv Gynecol. 2013;20:616–9.

    Google Scholar 

  40. McCausland AM, McCausland VM. Partial rollerball ablation: a modification of total ablation to treat menorrhagia without causing complications from intrauterine adhesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;80:1512–21.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Huang D, Zhu Y, Chen J, et al. Effect of modified laparoscopic salpingectomy on ovarian reserve: changes in the serum antimullerian hormone levels. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Robotic Surg. 2019;2:8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mohamed AA, Yosef AH, James C, et al. Ovarian reserve after salpingectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96:795–803.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Qin F, Du D-F, Li X-L. The effect of salpingectomy on ovarian reserve and ovarian function. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016;71:369–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Grynnerup AG, Lindhard A, Sorenson S. Anti-mullerian hormone levels in salpingectomized compared to nonsalpingectomized women with tubal factor infertility and women with unexplained infertility. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:1297–303.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ye XP, Yang Y, Sun XX. A retrospective analysis of the effect of salpingectomy on serum antimullerian hormone level and ovarian reserve. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:e1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lass A, Ellenbogen A, Croucher C, et al. Effect of salpingectomy on ovarian response to superovulation in an in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer program. Fertil Steril. 1998;70:1035–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Chan CC, Ng EH, Li CF, et al. Impaired ovarian blood flow and reduced antral follicle count following laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2175–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kurman RJ, Shih LM. The dualistic model of ovarian carcinogenesis. Am J Pathol. 2016;186:733–47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Crum CP, Drapkin R, Miron A, et al. The distal fallopian tube: a new model for pelvic serous carcinogenesis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:3–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Carlson JW, Miron A, Jarboe EA, et al. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma: its potential role in primary peritoneal serous carcinoma and serous cancer prevention. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4160–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Tone AA, Salvador S, Finlayson SJ, et al. The role of the fallopian tube in ovarian cancer. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2012;10:296–306.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. George SHL, Garcia R, Slomovitz BM. Ovarian Cancer: the fallopian tube as the site of origin and opportunities for prevention. Front Oncol. 2016;6:108.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Chicago (IL). 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  54. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee Opinion No. 260. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:405.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Powell CB, Alabaster A, Simmons S, et al. Salpingectomy for sterilization. Change in practice in a large integrated health care system, 2011-2016. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:961–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Subramaniam A, Einerson BD, Blanchard CT, et al. The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy versus standard tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery for ovarian cancer risk reduction. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152:127–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Escobedo LG, Peterson HB, Grubb GS, S. Case-fatality rates for tubal sterilization in U.S. hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;160:147–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Llarena NC, Shah AB, Milad MP. Bowel injury in gynecologic laparoscopy. A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1407–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Goldhaber MK, Armstrong MA, Golditch IM, et al. Long term risk of hysterectomy among 80,007 sterilized and comparison women at Kaiser Permanente, 1971–1987. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;138:508–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ainsworth AJ, Baumgarten SC, Bakkum-Gamez JN, et al. Tubal ligation and age at natural menopause. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:1247–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. DeStefano F, Perlman JA, Peterson HB, et al. Long term risks of menstrual disturbances after tubal sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;152:835–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rulin MC, Davidson AR, Philliber SG, et al. Long term effect of tubal sterilization on menstrual indices and pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82:118–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Gentile GP, Kaufman SC, Helbig DW. Is there evidence for a post-tubal sterilization syndrome? Fertil Steril. 1998;69:179–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kjer JJ. Sexual adjustment to tubal sterilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod. 1990;35:211–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Peterson HB, Jeng G, Folger SG, et al. The risk of menstrual abnormalities after tubal sterilization. U.S. collaborative review of sterilization working group. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1681–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, et al. The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization from the U.S. collaborative review of sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;164:1161–70.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Soderstrom RM, Levy BS, Engel T. Reducing bipolar sterilization failures. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:60–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Lichter ED, Laff SP, Friedman EA. Value of routine dilation and curettage at the time of interval sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;67:763–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Varma R, Gupta JK. Failed sterilisation: evidence-based review and medico-legal ramifications. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;111:1322–32.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Date SV, Rokade J, Mule V, et al. Female sterilization failure: review over a decade and its clinicopathological correlation. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2014;4:81–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Lawrie TA, Kulier R, Nardin JM. Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015

    Google Scholar 

  72. Thiel JA, Carson GD. Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the Essure tubal sterilization procedure and laparoscopic tubal sterilization. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30:581–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Carney P, Yao J, Lin J, et al. Costs of hysteroscopic sterilization versus laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation sterilization among commercially-insured women in the United States. Value Health. 2016;19:A175.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Duffy S, Marsh F, Rogerson L, et al. Female sterilisation: a cohort controlled comparative study of ESSURE versus laparoscopic sterilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 112:1522–8.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Schmidt E, Diedrich J, Eisenberg D. Laparoscopic Sterilization: Prevention of Failures. Glob Libr Women's Med. 2014. (ISSN: 1756-2228).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sweeney W III. The interstitial portion of the uterine tube—its gross anatomy, course and length. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;19:3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Valle RF, Carignan CS, Wright TC, et al. Tissue response to the STOP microcoil transcervical permanent contraceptive device: results from a prehysterectomy study. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:976–80.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Djeffal H, Blouet M, Pizzoferato AC, et al. Imaging findings in Essure-related complications: a pictorial review Br J Radiol. 2018:91. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170686.

  79. Jeirath N, Basinski CM, Hammond MA. Hysteroscopic sterilization device follow-up rate: hysterosalpingogram versus transvaginal ultrasound. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:836–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Rattray D, Thiel P, Suchet I, et al. Confirmation testing of Essure microinserts in unintended pregnancies using a 10-year retrospective database. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:944–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Guelfguat M, Gruenberg TR, DiPoce J, et al. Imaging of mechanical tubal occlusion devices and potential complications. Radiographics. 2012;32:1659–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Rezai S, LaBibe M, Roberts HAG, et al. Essure microinsert abdominal migration after hysteroscopic tubal sterilization of an appropriately places-d Essure device: dual case reports and review of the literature. Case rep. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;2015:402197.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Kerin JF, Carignan CS, Cher D. The safety and effectiveness of a new hysteroscopic method for permanent birth control: results of the first Essure pbc clinical study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;41:364–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Sinha D, Kalathy V, Gupta JK, et al. The feasibility, success and patient satisfaction associated with outpatient hysteroscopic sterilisation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;114:676–83.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Hastings-Tolsma M, Nodine P, Teal SB. Essure: Hysteroscopic sterilization. J Midwife Wom Health. 2006;6:510–4.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Francini M, Zizolfi B, Coppola C, et al. Essure permanent birth control, effectiveness and safety: an Italian 11-year survey. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24:640–5.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Levie M, Chudnoff SG. A comparison of novice and experienced physicians performing hysteroscopic sterilization: an analysis of an FDA-mandated trial. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:643–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Cooper JM, Carignan CS, Cher D, et al. Microinsert nonincisional hysteroscopic sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:59–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Kerin J. (2005) Hysteroscopic sterilization, long-term safety and efficacy. Presented at the 53rd annual clinical meeting of the American College of Obstetricians & gynecologists, may 8, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Chudnoff SG, Nichols JE Jr, Levie M. Hysteroscopic Essure inserts for permanent contraception: extended follow-up results of a phase III multicenter international study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:951–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Hitzerd E, Schreuder HWR, Vleugels MPH, et al. Twelve –year retrospective review of unintended pregnancies after Essure sterilization in the Netherlands. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:932–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Hopkins MR, Creedon DJ, Wagie AE, et al. Retrospective cost analysis comparing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral tubal coagulation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:97–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Antoun L, Smith P, Gupta PK, et al. The feasibility, safety and effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:570.e1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Mao J, Pfeifer S, Schlegel P, et al. Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study. Brit Med J. 2015;351:h5162.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. la Chapelle CF, Veersema S, Brolmann HA, et al. Effectiveness and feasibility of hysteroscopic sterilization techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1516–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Palmer SN, Greenberg JA. Transcervical sterilization: a comparison of Essure permanent birth control system and Adiana permanent contraception system. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2:84–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. AAGL advisory statement. (2016) Essure hysteroscopic sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23:658–689.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Kamencic H, Thiel L, Karreman E, et al. Does Essure cause significant de novo pain? A retrospective review of indications for second surgeries after Essure placement. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:1158–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Clark NV, Rademaker D, Mushinski AA, et al. Essure removal for the treatment of device-attributed symptoms; an expanded case series and follow-up survey. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24:971–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Braginski L, George ST, Locher SR. Management of perforated Essure with migration into small and large bowel mesentery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:504–8.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Carney PI, Yao J, Lin J, et al. Occurrence of chronic pelvic pain, abnormal uterine bleeding, and hysterectomy post-procedure among women who have undergone female sterilization procedures: a retrospective claims analysis of commercially insured women in the US. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:651–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Sills ES, Xiang Li X, Wood SH, et al. Analysis of surgeries performed after hysteroscopic sterilization as tabulated from 3,803 Essure patient experiences. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017;60:296–302.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Sills ES, Li X, Jones CA, et al. Contraceptive failure after hysteroscopic sterilization: analysis of clinical and demographic data from 103 unplanned pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2015;58:487–93.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Maassen LW, van Gastel DM, Haveman I, et al. Removal of Essure sterilization devices: a retrospective cohort study in the Nethelands. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;26:1056–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Chene G, Cerruto E, Moret S, et al. Quality of life after laparoscopic removal of Essure sterilization devices. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol: X. 2019; j.eurox.2019.100054. eCollection.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Yunker AC, Ritch JM, Robinson EF, et al. Incidence and risk factors for chronic pelvic pain after hysteroscopic sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:390–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Basinki CM. A review of clinical data for currently approved hysteroscopic sterilization procedures. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2010;3:101–10.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Vancaillie TG, Anderson TL, Johns DA. A 12-month prospective evaluation of transcervical sterilization using implantable polymer matrices. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1270–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Ory EM, Hines RS, Cleland WH, et al. Pregnancy after microinsert sterilization with tubal occlusion confirmed by hysterosalpingogram. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:508–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Anderson TL, Vancaillie TG. The Adiana system for permanent contraception: safety and efficacy at three years. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:612–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Divakar P, Trembly BS, Moodie KL, et al. (2017) Preliminary assessment of a hysteroscopic fallopian tube heat and biomaterial technology for permanent female sterilization. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Divakar P, Caruso I, Moodie KL, et al. Design, manufacture, and in vitro testing of a tissue scaffold for permanent female sterilization by tubal occlusion. MRS Adv. 2018;30:1685–90.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Thurkow AL. AltaSeal hysteroscopic sterilization: the new challenge to Essure? J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2011;18:S38.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Coleman JE, Bongers M, Veersema S, et al. Development and initial clinical experience with AltaSeal: a novel hysteroscopically placed permanent contraception system. Curr Obstet Gynecol Reports. 2017;6:74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Thurkow AL, Coleman JE, Bongers MY, et al. AltaSeal: pilot and initial pivotal trial results of a new hysteroscopic system for sterilization and tubal occlusion for hydrosalpinges. J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2017;24:S91.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Hasskamp T, Widemeersch DA. A new hysteroscopic technique for reversible long-acting reproductive control (ReLARC®) as an alternative to laparoscopic sterilization and Essure. Clin Obstet Gynecol Reprod Med. 2016;2:213–6.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Ozgur K, Bulut.H, Berkkanoglu M, et al. ICSI pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic placement of Essure devices for hydrosalpinx in laparoscopic contrain- dicated patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:113–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Legendre G, Gallot V, Levaillant JM, et al. Adiana hysteroscopic tubal occlusion device for the treatment of hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilization: a case report. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2013;42:401–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Tsiami A, Chaimani A, Mavridis D, et al. Surgical treatment for hydrosalpinx prior to in-vitro fertilization embryo transfer: a network meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:434–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Arora P, Arora RS, Cahill D. Essure for management of hydrosalpinx prior to in vitro fertilization-a systematic review and pooled analysis. Brit J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;121:527–36.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Barbosa MW, Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou SI, et al. High miscarriage rate in women treated with Essure for hydrosalpinx before embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:556–656.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Cleary TP, Tepper NK, Cwiak C, et al. Pregnancies after hysteroscopic sterilization: a systematic review. Contraception. 2013;87:539–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Gariepy AM, Creinin MD, Smith KJ, et al. Probability of pregnancy after sterilization: a comparison of hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic sterilization. Contraception. 2014;90:174–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Fernandez H, Legendre G, Blein C, et al. Tubal sterilization: pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic sterilization in France, 2006-2010. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;180:133–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Mao J, Guiahi M, Chudnoff S, et al. Seven-year outcomes after hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilizations. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:323–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Brandi K, Morgan JR, Paasche-Orlow MK, et al. Obstetric outcomes after failed hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilization procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:253–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Soini T, Rantanen M, Paavonen J, et al. Long-term follow-up after endometrial ablation in Finland. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:554–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, et al. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States collaborative review of sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:889–98.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Divers WA. Characteristics of women requesting reversal of sterilization. Fertil Steril. 1984;41:233–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Curtis KM, Mohllajee AP, Peterson HB. Regret following female sterilization at a young age: a systematic review. Contraception. 2006;73:205–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Miller WB, Shain RN, Pasta DJ. The predictors of post-sterilization regret in married women. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1991;21:1083–100.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Chi IC, Jones DB. Incidence, risk factors, and prevention of poststerilization regret in women: an updated international review from an epidemiological perspective. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1994;49:722–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Henshaw SK, Singh S. Sterilization regret among U.S. couples. Fam Plan Perspect. 1986;18:238–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Chi IC, Gates D, Thapa S. Performing sterilizations during women’s postpartum hospitalization: a review of the United States and international experiences. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1992;47:71–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Allyn DP, Leton DA, Westcott NA, et al. Presterilization counseling and women’s regret about having been sterilized. J Reprod Med. 1986;31:1027–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sterilization of women: ethical issues and considerations. Committee opinion # 695. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:109–16.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Schmidt J, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, et al. Requesting information about and obtaining reversal after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. collaborative review of sterilization. Fertil Steril. 1999;74:892–8.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Siegler AM, Hulka J, Peretz A. Reversibility of female sterilization. Fertil Steril. 1985;43:499–505.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Nos Z, et al. Sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1145–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Deffieux X, Morin Surroca M, Faivre E, et al. Tubal anastomosis after tubal sterilization: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:1149–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Monteith CW, Berger GS, Zerden ML. Pregnancy success after hysteroscopic sterilization reversal. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;124:1183–9.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Novy MJ, Thurmond AS, Patton P, et al. Diagnosis of cornual obstruction by transcervical fallopian tube cannulation. Fertil Steril. 1988;50:434–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Malacova E, Kemp-Casey A, Bremner A, et al. Live delivery outcome after tubal sterilization reversal: a population-based study. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:921–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Koh C, Janik G. Laparoscopic microsurgery: current and future status. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1999;11:401–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Godin PA, Syrios K, Roge G, et al. Laparoscopic reversal of tubal sterilization: a retrospective study over 135 cases. Front Surg. 2018;5:79. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2018.00079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Richart RM. The use of chemical agents in female sterilization. In: Zatuchni GI, Shelton JD, Goldsmith A, Sciarra JJ, editors. Female Transcervical Sterilization. Philadelphia, PA: Harper and Row, Chapter 3; 1981. p. 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Jensen JT, Hanna C, Yao S, et al. Transcervical administration of polidocanol foam prevents pregnancy in female baboons. Contraception. 2016;94:527–33.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Guo JX, Lucchesi L, Gregory KW. Improvement of stability of polidocanol foam for nonsurgical permanent contraception. Contraception. 2015;92:103–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Zipper J, Strachetti E, Medel M. Human fertility control by transvaginal application of quinacrine on the fallopian tube. Fertil Steril. 1970;21:581–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. El Kady AA, Nagib HS, Kessel E. Efficacy and safety of repeated transcervical quinacrine pellet insertions for female sterilization. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:301–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Bhatt R, Waszak CS. Four year follow-up of insertion of quinacrine hydrochloride pellets as a means of nonsurgical female sterilization. Fertil Steril. 1985;44:303–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Hieu DT, Tan TT, Tan DN, et al. 31,781 cases of non-surgical female sterilization with quinacrine pellets in Vietnam. Lancet. 1993;342:213–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Sokal D, Zipper J, King T. Transcervical quinacrine sterilization: clinical experience. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1995;51:S57–69.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  155. Feldblum P, Hays M, Zipper J, et al. Pregnancy rates among Chilean women who had non-surgical sterilization with quinacrine pellets between 1977 and 1989. Contraception. 2000;61:379–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Alvarado A, Quinones R, Aznar R. Tubal instillation of quinacrine under hysteroscopic control. In: Sciarra JJ, Butler Jr JC, Speidel JJ, editors. Hysteroscopic sterilization. New York: Intercontinental Medical Book Corporation; 1974. p. 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Lippes J. Quinacrine sterilization: the imperative need for American clinical trials. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:1106–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Lippes J. Quinacrine sterilization (QS): time for reconsideration. Contraception. 2015;92:91–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Falb RD, Lower BR, Crowley JP, et al. Transcervical fallopian tube blockage with gelatin-resorcinol-formaldehyde (GRF). In: Sciarra, JJ; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Richart RM. The use of chemical agents in female sterilization. 91980. In: Droegemueller W, Speidel JJ, editors. Advances in female sterilization. New York: Harper and Row. p. 262–9.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Neuwirth RS, Richart RM, Stevenson T, et al. An outpatient approach to female sterilization with methylcyanoacrylate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1968;130:951–6.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Richart RM, Neuwirth RS, Bolduc L. Single application fertility regulating device: description of a new instrument. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;127:86–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Moyer DL, Neuwirth RS, Rioux JE. Discussion: research and clinical experience with MCA. In: Zatuchni GI, Shelton JD, Goldsmith A, Sciarra JJ, editors. Female Transcervical Sterilization. Philadelphia: Harper & Row; 1983. p. 223–33.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Bigolin S, Fagundes DJ, Riivoire HC, et al. Transcervical hysteroscopic sterilization using cyanoacrylate: a long-term experimental study on sheep. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009;35:1012–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Amer MI, Ahmed ME, Abd-El-Maeboud KH, et al. Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion with the use of iso-amyl-2-cyanoacrylate. Open Access J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;1:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Greenberg JA. Hysteroscopic sterilization: history and current methods. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008;1:113–21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. Kocks J. Eine neue methode der sterilization der frauen. Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie. 1878;2:617–9.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Pantaleoni DC. On endoscopic examination of the cavity of the womb. Med Press Circ. 1869;8:26–9.

    Google Scholar 

  169. von Mikulicz-Radecki F, Freund A. Ein neue hysteroskop und seine anwendung in der Gynakologie. Zschr Gebertsh. 1928;92:13–21.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  170. Edstrom K, Fernstrom I. The diagnostic possibilities of a modified hysteroscopic technique. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1970;49:327–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Quinones GR, Alvarado DA, Anzar AA. Tubal electrocauterization under hysteroscopic control. Contraception. 1973;7:195–9.

    Google Scholar 

  172. Lindemann HJ. Transuterine tubensterilisation per hysteroskop. Gerburtsh u Frauenheilk. 1973;33:709–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  173. Cooper JM, Houck RM, Rigberg HS. The incidence of intrauterine abnormalities in patients undergoing elective hysteroscopic sterilization. J Reprod Med. 1983;10:659–61.

    Google Scholar 

  174. March CM, Israel R. A comparison of steerable and rigid hysteroscopy for uterine visualization and cannulation of tubal ostia. Contraception. 1976;14:269–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Richart RM. Complications of hysteroscopic sterilization. Contraception. 1974;10:230–5.

    Google Scholar 

  176. March CM, Israel R. A critical appraisal of hysteroscopic tubal fulguration for sterilization. Contraception. 1975;11:261–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Brundin J. Observations on the mode of action of an intratubal device, the P-block. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156:997–1000.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Brundin J. Transcervical sterilization in the human female by hysteroscopic application of hydrogelic occlusive devices into the intramural parts of the fallopian tube: 10 years experience of the P-block. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991;39:41–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Hosseinian AH, Morales WA. Clinical application of hysteroscopic sterilization using uterotubal junction blocking devices. In: Zatuchni GI, Shelton JD, Goldsmith A, Sciarra JJ, editors. Female Transcervical Sterilization. Philadelphia: Harper & Row; 1983. p. 234–9.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Hamou J, Gasparri F, Scarselli GF, et al. Hysteroscopic reversible tubal sterilization. Acta Eur Fertil. 1984;15:123–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. Craft I. Uterotubal ceramic plugs. In: Sciarra JJ, Droegmueller W, Speidel JJ, editors. Advances in female sterilization techniques. Hagerstown, MD: Harper & Row; 1976. p. 176–81.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Sugimoto O, editor. Hysteroscopic reversible sterilization. In: diagnostic and therapeutic hysteroscopy. Tokyo: Igahu-Shoin; 1978. p. 196–207.

    Google Scholar 

  183. Reed TP III, Erb R. Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion with silicone rubber. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;61:388–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Loffer FD. Hysteroscopic sterilization with the use of formed-in-place silicone plugs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;149:261–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Cooper JM. Hysteroscopic sterilization. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1992;35:282–98.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Brumsted JR, Shirk G, Soderling MJ, et al. Attempted transcervical occlusion of the fallopian tube with the Nd:YAG laser. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77:327–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Yeasmin S, Nakayama K, Ishibashi M, et al. Microwave endometrial ablation as an alternative to hysterectomy for the emergent control of uterine bleeding in patients who are poor surgical candidates. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280:279–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Xu B, Zhu K-n XD, et al. Management of long-term and reversible hysteroscopic sterilization: a novel device with nickel-titanium shape memory alloy. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:61–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  189. Bouillon K, Bertrand M, Bader G, et al. Association of hysteroscopic vs laparoscopic sterilization with procedural, gynecological and medical outcomes. JAMA. 2018;319:375–87.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  190. Perkins RB, Morgan JR, Awosogba TP, et al. Gynecologic outcomes after hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilization procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:843–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Huntington Reproductive Center Fertility, Division of Gynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, USA

    Charles M. March

Authors
  1. Charles M. March
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles M. March .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Donna Shoupe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

March, C.M. (2020). Female Tubal Sterilization. In: Shoupe, D. (eds) The Handbook of Contraception. Current Clinical Practice. Humana, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46391-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46391-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46390-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46391-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation