Cargando…
Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study
Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization with the “Essure” device with laparoscopic sterilization in a large, all-inclusive, state cohort. Design Population based cohort study. Settings Outpatient interventional setting in New York State. Participants Women undergo...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26462857 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5162 |
_version_ | 1782395023965290496 |
---|---|
author | Mao, Jialin Pfeifer, Samantha Schlegel, Peter Sedrakyan, Art |
author_facet | Mao, Jialin Pfeifer, Samantha Schlegel, Peter Sedrakyan, Art |
author_sort | Mao, Jialin |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization with the “Essure” device with laparoscopic sterilization in a large, all-inclusive, state cohort. Design Population based cohort study. Settings Outpatient interventional setting in New York State. Participants Women undergoing interval sterilization procedure, including hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure device and laparoscopic surgery, between 2005 and 2013. Main outcomes measures Safety events within 30 days of procedures; unintended pregnancies and reoperations within one year of procedures. Mixed model accounting for hospital clustering was used to compare 30 day and 1 year outcomes, adjusting for patient characteristics and other confounders. Time to reoperation was evaluated using frailty model for time to event analysis. Results We identified 8048 patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization and 44 278 undergoing laparoscopic sterilization between 2005 and 2013 in New York State. There was a significant increase in the use of hysteroscopic procedures during this period, while use of laparoscopic sterilization decreased. Patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization were older than those undergoing laparoscopic sterilization and were more likely to have a history of pelvic inflammatory disease (10.3% v 7.2%, P<0.01), major abdominal surgery (9.4% v 7.9%, P<0.01), and cesarean section (23.2% v 15.4%, P<0.01). At one year after surgery, hysteroscopic sterilization was not associated with a higher risk of unintended pregnancy (odds ratio 0.84 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.12)) but was associated with a substantially increased risk of reoperation (odds ratio 10.16 (7.47 to 13.81)) compared with laparoscopic sterilization. Conclusions Patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization have a similar risk of unintended pregnancy but a more than 10-fold higher risk of undergoing reoperation compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic sterilization. Benefits and risks of both procedures should be discussed with patients for informed decisions making. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4604215 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46042152015-10-21 Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study Mao, Jialin Pfeifer, Samantha Schlegel, Peter Sedrakyan, Art BMJ Research Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization with the “Essure” device with laparoscopic sterilization in a large, all-inclusive, state cohort. Design Population based cohort study. Settings Outpatient interventional setting in New York State. Participants Women undergoing interval sterilization procedure, including hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure device and laparoscopic surgery, between 2005 and 2013. Main outcomes measures Safety events within 30 days of procedures; unintended pregnancies and reoperations within one year of procedures. Mixed model accounting for hospital clustering was used to compare 30 day and 1 year outcomes, adjusting for patient characteristics and other confounders. Time to reoperation was evaluated using frailty model for time to event analysis. Results We identified 8048 patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization and 44 278 undergoing laparoscopic sterilization between 2005 and 2013 in New York State. There was a significant increase in the use of hysteroscopic procedures during this period, while use of laparoscopic sterilization decreased. Patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization were older than those undergoing laparoscopic sterilization and were more likely to have a history of pelvic inflammatory disease (10.3% v 7.2%, P<0.01), major abdominal surgery (9.4% v 7.9%, P<0.01), and cesarean section (23.2% v 15.4%, P<0.01). At one year after surgery, hysteroscopic sterilization was not associated with a higher risk of unintended pregnancy (odds ratio 0.84 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.12)) but was associated with a substantially increased risk of reoperation (odds ratio 10.16 (7.47 to 13.81)) compared with laparoscopic sterilization. Conclusions Patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization have a similar risk of unintended pregnancy but a more than 10-fold higher risk of undergoing reoperation compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic sterilization. Benefits and risks of both procedures should be discussed with patients for informed decisions making. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2015-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4604215/ /pubmed/26462857 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5162 Text en © Mao et al 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Mao, Jialin Pfeifer, Samantha Schlegel, Peter Sedrakyan, Art Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study |
title | Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study |
title_full | Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study |
title_fullStr | Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study |
title_short | Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study |
title_sort | safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26462857 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5162 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT maojialin safetyandefficacyofhysteroscopicsterilizationcomparedwithlaparoscopicsterilizationanobservationalcohortstudy AT pfeifersamantha safetyandefficacyofhysteroscopicsterilizationcomparedwithlaparoscopicsterilizationanobservationalcohortstudy AT schlegelpeter safetyandefficacyofhysteroscopicsterilizationcomparedwithlaparoscopicsterilizationanobservationalcohortstudy AT sedrakyanart safetyandefficacyofhysteroscopicsterilizationcomparedwithlaparoscopicsterilizationanobservationalcohortstudy |