D J Jamieson1, S D Hillis, A Duerr, P A Marchbanks, C Costello, H B Peterson. 1. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA. d.jamieson7@cdc.gov
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of intraoperative or postoperative complications for interval laparoscopic tubal sterilizations. METHODS: We used a prospective, multicenter cohort study of 9475 women who had interval laparoscopic tubal sterilization to calculate the rates of intraoperative or postoperative complications. The relative safety of various methods was assessed by calculating overall complication rates for each major method of tubal occlusion. Method-related complication rates also were calculated and included only complications attributable to a method of occlusion. We used logistic regression to identify independent predictors of one or more complications. RESULTS: When we used a more restrictive definition of unintended major surgery, the overall rate of complications went from 1.6 to 0.9 per 100 procedures. There was one life-threatening event and there were no deaths. Complications rates for each of the four major methods of tubal occlusion ranged from 1.17 to 1.95, with no significant differences between them. When complication rates were calculated, the spring clip method had the lowest method-related complication rate (0.47 per 100 procedures), although it was not significantly different from the others. In adjusted analysis, diabetes mellitus (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3, 8.8), general anesthesia (OR 3.2; CI 1.6, 6.6), previous abdominal or pelvic surgery (OR 2.0; CI 1.4, 2.9), and obesity (OR 1.7; CI 1.2, 2.6) were independent predictors of one or more complications. CONCLUSION: Interval laparoscopic sterilization generally is a safe procedure; serious morbidity is rare.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of intraoperative or postoperative complications for interval laparoscopic tubal sterilizations. METHODS: We used a prospective, multicenter cohort study of 9475 women who had interval laparoscopic tubal sterilization to calculate the rates of intraoperative or postoperative complications. The relative safety of various methods was assessed by calculating overall complication rates for each major method of tubal occlusion. Method-related complication rates also were calculated and included only complications attributable to a method of occlusion. We used logistic regression to identify independent predictors of one or more complications. RESULTS: When we used a more restrictive definition of unintended major surgery, the overall rate of complications went from 1.6 to 0.9 per 100 procedures. There was one life-threatening event and there were no deaths. Complications rates for each of the four major methods of tubal occlusion ranged from 1.17 to 1.95, with no significant differences between them. When complication rates were calculated, the spring clip method had the lowest method-related complication rate (0.47 per 100 procedures), although it was not significantly different from the others. In adjusted analysis, diabetes mellitus (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3, 8.8), general anesthesia (OR 3.2; CI 1.6, 6.6), previous abdominal or pelvic surgery (OR 2.0; CI 1.4, 2.9), and obesity (OR 1.7; CI 1.2, 2.6) were independent predictors of one or more complications. CONCLUSION: Interval laparoscopic sterilization generally is a safe procedure; serious morbidity is rare.