Review articlePregnancies after hysteroscopic sterilization: a systematic review☆
Introduction
Female sterilization is the second most commonly used form of contraception in the United States after oral contraceptives and can now be performed by abdominal, laparoscopic or hysteroscopic approaches [1]. Currently, two hysteroscopic systems are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): the Essure® system (Conceptus Incorporated, Mountain View, CA, USA) approved in 2002 and the Adiana® Permanent Contraception System (Hologic, Inc., Bedford, MA, USA) approved in 2009. However, the Adiana® System was removed from the US market by Hologic, Inc., in 2012.
The hysteroscopic route may be a safer option than abdominal or laparoscopic approaches for many patients, including those with obesity or previous surgery, as it does not require general anesthesia or entry into the abdominal cavity and may be performed in an office setting [2], [3]. While laparoscopic and abdominal approaches are effective immediately, both hysteroscopic systems require a period of 3 months after the procedure for the fallopian tubes to undergo fibrosis leading to tubal occlusion and contraceptive effectiveness [4], [5]. Product labeling in the United States for both procedures states that patients must use alternative contraception for at least 3 months postprocedure until bilateral tubal occlusion is confirmed by hysterosalpingogram (HSG). FDA directions also include placing the device in the early proliferative phase of the menstrual cycle to avoid placement in the setting of an early undiagnosed pregnancy [4], [5]. Other countries have used pelvic X-ray or ultrasound to confirm proper placement at 3 months. Hysteroscopic sterilization is considered to be reliable for contraception after documentation of bilateral tubal occlusion.
While long-term data from large cohorts of women have examined sterilization failure after abdominal and laparoscopic approaches, less is known about pregnancies following the newer hysteroscopic sterilization approach. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the evidence regarding the occurrence and timing of pregnancies following placement of the two FDA-approved hysteroscopic sterilization devices.
Section snippets
Methods
The PubMed database was searched independently by two authors for all peer-reviewed articles in any language published from database inception through March 2012 using the following search terms: (hysteroscopic sterilization OR hysteroscopic sterilisation OR transcervical sterilization OR essure OR adiana). The search targeted articles that reported whether or not pregnancies occurred among women who have undergone hysteroscopic sterilization with either Essure® or Adiana®. To identify
Results
Using the PubMed search terms, we identified 359 articles, of which 24 articles satisfied inclusion criteria by reporting whether or not pregnancies occurred among women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization. Twenty-two articles addressed the Essure® device (Table 1), and 2 articles addressed the Adiana® device (Table 2). Follow-up imaging utilized in the studies included HSG, X-ray and ultrasound. Of the 22 articles that involved the Essure® procedure, 11 reported that no pregnancies
Discussion
Among articles that reported pregnancies following hysteroscopic sterilization, 102 pregnancies were reported in 11 articles among women who underwent Essure® placement, of which 15 occurred after imaging confirmation of correct placement or tubal occlusion; the remaining pregnancies occurred most frequently in women who did not have any or accurate follow-up imaging, who were not using effective contraception in the first 3 months after placement or who were already pregnant at the time of
References (32)
- et al.
[Essure implants for tubal sterilisation in France]
Gynecol Obstet Fertil
(2009) - et al.
[Hysteroscopic fallopian tube sterilization procedure: feasibility and one-year follow-up]
Gynecol Obstet Fertil
(2006) - et al.
Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process
Am J Prev Med
(2001) - et al.
Microinsert nonincisional hysteroscopic sterilization
Obstet Gynecol
(2003) - et al.
Essure hysteroscopic sterilization: results based on utilizing a new coil catheter delivery system
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc
(2004) - et al.
A comparative study of hysteroscopic sterilization performed in-office versus a hospital operating room
J Minim Invasive Gynecol
(2006) - et al.
Essure: a new device for hysteroscopic tubal sterilization in an outpatient setting
Fertil Steril
(2004) - et al.
Hysteroscopic sterilization in women with severe cardiac disease: experience at a tertiary center
Mayo Clin Proc
(2008) - et al.
Satisfaction and tolerance with office hysteroscopic tubal sterilization
Fertil Steril
(2008) - et al.
Prospective analysis of office-based hysteroscopic sterilization
J Minim Invasive Gynecol
(2006)
A summary of reported pregnancies after hysteroscopic sterilization
J Minim Invasive Gynecol
Unintended pregnancies after Essure sterilization in the Netherlands
Fertil Steril
The Adiana system for permanent contraception: safety and efficacy at 3 years
J Minim Invasive Gynecol
Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008
Vital Health Stat
Sterilization
Obstet Gynecol
Transcervical sterilization: a comparison of Essure® permanent birth control system and Adiana® permanent contraception system
Rev Obstet Gynecol
Cited by (0)
- ☆
Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the US Department of Health and Human Services.