Literature DB >> 22360159

Complications of hysteroscopic Essure(®) sterilisation: report on 4306 procedures performed in a single centre.

B Povedano1, J E Arjona, E Velasco, J A Monserrat, J Lorente, C Castelo-Branco.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the short-, medium- and long-term complications in women undergoing hysteroscopic tubal sterilisation with the Essure(®) device.
DESIGN: Retrospective 7-year study.
SETTING: Office hysteroscopic unit in a teaching hospital. SAMPLE: A total of 4306 women whoe underwent the Essure(®) sterilisation procedure from 2003 to 2010.
METHODS: Data on the success of the procedure and complications arising from outpatient hysteroscopic sterilisation using the Essure(®) system were collected from consecutive women undergoing the procedure over a 7-year period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Placement rate, successful bilateral tubal occlusion, perioperative adverse events, early postoperative (during the first 3 months of follow-up) and late complications (after the initial 3 months of follow-up).
RESULTS: A total of 4108 (96.8%) women completed the standard 3-month follow-up protocol. Only 534 (13%) women had undergone the procedure within the previous year. There were 115 (out of 4306; 2.7%) recorded complications, none of which resulted in the need for hospitalisation or discharge later than 2 hours after the procedure. Vasovagal syncope was the most frequently encountered adverse event, occurring in 85 (2.0%) of 4306 cases. In 19 cases, one device was expelled, with most expulsions (14 out of 19) being detected before or during the 3-month follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient hysteroscopic sterilisation using the Essure(®) system is safe, with a low rate of complications.
© 2012 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2012 RCOG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22360159     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03292.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  7 in total

1.  Incidence of opioid-managed pelvic pain after hysteroscopic sterilization versus laparoscopic sterilization, US 2005-2012.

Authors:  Mitchell M Conover; Jennifer O Howell; Jennifer M Wu; Alan C Kinlaw; Nabarun Dasgupta; Michele Jonsson Funk
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.890

2.  Association of Hysteroscopic vs Laparoscopic Sterilization With Procedural, Gynecological, and Medical Outcomes.

Authors:  Kim Bouillon; Marion Bertrand; Georges Bader; Jean-Philippe Lucot; Rosemary Dray-Spira; Mahmoud Zureik
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  A Meta-Analysis of Bilateral Essure® Procedural Placement Success Rates on First Attempt.

Authors:  Gabriel Frietze; Ophra Leyser-Whalen; Mahbubur Rahman; Mahta Rouhani; Abbey B Berenson
Journal:  J Gynecol Surg       Date:  2015-12-01

Review 4.  Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization: an evidence-based analysis.

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

5.  Essure Surgical Removal and Subsequent Resolution of Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Isamarie Lora Alcantara; Shadi Rezai; Catherine Kirby; Annika Chadee; Cassandra E Henderson; Malvina Elmadjian
Journal:  Case Rep Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-01-24

6.  Essure® present controversies and 5 years' learned lessons: a retrospective study with short- and long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Sara Câmara; Filipa de Castro Coelho; Cláudia Freitas; Lilia Remesso
Journal:  Gynecol Surg       Date:  2017-10-03

7.  Risk of Essure microinsert abdominal migration: case report and review of literature.

Authors:  Giuseppe Ricci; Stefano Restaino; Giovanni Di Lorenzo; Francesco Fanfani; Federica Scrimin; Francesco P Mangino
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 2.423

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.