E Jokinen1,2, A Heino3, T Karipohja2, M Gissler3, R Hurskainen1,2. 1. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hyvinkää Hospital, Hyvinkää, Finland. 2. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 3. National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of female sterilisation in the Finnish population. DESIGN: A national register-based study using record linkage. SETTING: National data from Finland. SAMPLE: A total of 16 272 female sterilisations performed in 2009-2014. METHODS: The Register of Sterilisations was linked with the Hospital Discharge Register, Termination of Pregnancy Register, and the Medical Birth Register in order to investigate the occurrence of re-sterilisations, other surgical operations, and unwanted pregnancies after sterilisation, per method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included all pregnancies after sterilisation (births, miscarriages, terminations of pregnancy, and ectopic pregnancies) and operations (repeat sterilisations, other hysteroscopic and laparoscopic procedures, hysterectomies, and re-operations for a complication). The outcomes were presented by method as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in all spontaneous pregnancies between the groups. The risk ratio for any pregnancy was 1.27 (95% Cl 0.80-2.02) for Filshie® versus Essure® and 1.35 (95% Cl 0.92-1.96) for Pomeroy versus Essure® . In total, 1394 (8.6%) selected operations were identified after primary sterilisation. Re-sterilisations and hysteroscopies were most frequent among Essure® patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilisation have a similar risk of unintended pregnancy. All sterilisations are safe, and the risk of re-operations because of complications is low. Women with Essure® have a higher risk of undergoing re-sterilisation compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic sterilisation. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Essure® , Filshie® , and Pomeroy sterilisations are equally effective and safe.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of female sterilisation in the Finnish population. DESIGN: A national register-based study using record linkage. SETTING: National data from Finland. SAMPLE: A total of 16 272 female sterilisations performed in 2009-2014. METHODS: The Register of Sterilisations was linked with the Hospital Discharge Register, Termination of Pregnancy Register, and the Medical Birth Register in order to investigate the occurrence of re-sterilisations, other surgical operations, and unwanted pregnancies after sterilisation, per method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included all pregnancies after sterilisation (births, miscarriages, terminations of pregnancy, and ectopic pregnancies) and operations (repeat sterilisations, other hysteroscopic and laparoscopic procedures, hysterectomies, and re-operations for a complication). The outcomes were presented by method as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in all spontaneous pregnancies between the groups. The risk ratio for any pregnancy was 1.27 (95% Cl 0.80-2.02) for Filshie® versus Essure® and 1.35 (95% Cl 0.92-1.96) for Pomeroy versus Essure® . In total, 1394 (8.6%) selected operations were identified after primary sterilisation. Re-sterilisations and hysteroscopies were most frequent among Essure® patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilisation have a similar risk of unintended pregnancy. All sterilisations are safe, and the risk of re-operations because of complications is low. Women with Essure® have a higher risk of undergoing re-sterilisation compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic sterilisation. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Essure® , Filshie® , and Pomeroy sterilisations are equally effective and safe.