Literature DB >> 10596397

Sterilization and its consequences.

N W Hendrix1, S P Chauhan, J C Morrison.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this review is to analyze critically the two techniques of sterilization (bilateral tubal ligation [BTL] and vasectomy) so that a physician may provide informed consent about methods of sterilization. A MEDLINE search and extensive review of published literature dating back to 1966 was undertaken to compare preoperative counseling, operative procedures, postoperative complications, procedure-related costs, psychosocial consequences, and feasibility of reversal between BTL and a vasectomy. Compared with a vasectomy, BTL is 20 times more likely to have major complications, 10 to 37 times more likely to fail, and cost three times as much. Moreover, the procedure-related mortality, although rare, is 12 times higher with sterilization of the woman than of the man. Despite these advantages, 300,000 more BTLs were done in 1987 than vasectomies. In 1987, there were 976,000 sterilizations (65 percent BTLs and 35 percent vasectomies) with an overall cost of $1.8 billion. Over $260 million could have been saved if equal numbers of vasectomies and BTLs had been performed, or more than $800 million if 80 percent had been vasectomies, as was the case in 1971. The safest, most efficacious, and least expensive method of sterilization is vasectomy. For these reasons, physicians should recommend vasectomy when providing counseling on sterilization, despite the popularity of BTL. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians LEARNING
OBJECTIVES: After completion of this article, the reader will be able to predict the failure rates and likelihood of successful reversal of tubal ligation and vasectomy; to recall the difference in cost between the two sterilization procedures, and to describe the short-term and long-term complications associated with each of the two methods of sterilization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10596397     DOI: 10.1097/00006254-199912000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Surv        ISSN: 0029-7828            Impact factor:   2.347


  8 in total

1.  [Vasectomy : Current information].

Authors:  Thomas Kreutzig-Langenfeld; Ekaterina Lellig; Peter Hinz; Fabian Zilg
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Psychosocial implications of tubal ligation in a rural health district: a phenomenological study.

Authors:  Prosper M Lutala; Jannie F Hugo; Levi N Luhiriri
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 3.223

3.  Vasectomy Knowledge and Interest Among U.S. Men Who Do Not Intend to Have More Children.

Authors:  Kari White; Macarena Martínez Órdenes; David K Turok; Jessica D Gipson; Sonya Borrero
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2022 May-Jun

4.  Assessing Vasectomy-Related Information on YouTube: An Analysis of the Quality, Understandability, and Actionability of Information.

Authors:  Jacob J Lang; Zane Giffen; Stephen Hong; Jonathan Demeter; Ahmed El-Zawahry; Puneet Sindhwani; Obi Ekwenna
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2022 Mar-Apr

5.  Sterilization in the United States.

Authors:  Deborah Bartz; James A Greenberg
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008

6.  Tubal ligation in Catholic hospitals: a qualitative study of ob-gyns' experiences.

Authors:  Debra B Stulberg; Yael Hoffman; Irma Hasham Dahlquist; Lori R Freedman
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2014-05-04       Impact factor: 3.375

Review 7.  Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors:  K McMartin
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2013-10-01

8.  Barriers to Offering Vasectomy at Publicly Funded Family Planning Organizations in Texas.

Authors:  Kari White; Anthony Campbell; Kristine Hopkins; Daniel Grossman; Joseph E Potter
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2017-02-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.