Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Tubal Sterilization

  • Author: Robert K Zurawin, MD; Chief Editor: Michel E Rivlin, MD  more...
 
Updated: Jan 23, 2015
 

Background

Prior to the 1960s, female sterilization in the United States was generally performed only for medical indications (when additional pregnancies would be hazardous to the mother). Many centers used a formula (endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists until 1969) in which age multiplied by parity had to be greater than or equal to 120 before elective sterilization could be considered. The changing cultural climate in the 1960s encouraged women to reduce family size. The popularization of sex steroid hormone contraception (oral contraception) is credited for beginning the sexual revolution and allowing women to use safe, reversible contraception that also provided noncontraceptive benefits.

During the same decade, surgical advances resulted in safe, less invasive female sterilization procedures when childbearing was no longer desired. Most importantly, insurance companies began to cover female sterilization procedures, making the procedure accessible to millions of women in the United States previously unable to afford the surgery.

Currently, approximately 700,000 bilateral tubal sterilizations are performed annually in the United States. Of these, half are performed postpartum and half are ambulatory interval procedures. Eleven million US women aged 15-44 years rely on bilateral tubal occlusion for contraception, and more than 190 million couples worldwide use surgical sterilization as a safe and reliable method of permanent contraception.

Next

History of the Procedure

See the list below:

  • In 1823, Blundell first suggested tubal ligation for sterilization before the Medical Society of London.
  • In 1876, Porro performed a cesarean hysterectomy with the secondary intention of sterilization.
  • In 1880 in Toledo, OH, Lungren was first to ligate a woman's tubes.
  • In 1885, Thomas suggested tubal ligation as opposed to Porro's operation for sterilization.
  • In 1895, Dührssen used a double ligature and was the first to perform tubal ligation via colpotomy.
  • In 1897, Kehrer and Buettner divided the tubes between the sutures.
  • In 1898, Ruhl cut the tube 5 cm from the uterus and sutured the ends to a vaginal incision.
  • In 1898, Rose removed the tubes at the cornua.
  • In 1919, Madlener crushed and ligated the tubes with nonabsorbable suture.
  • In 1924, Irving published his method in which the proximal portion of the severed tube is buried in a small myometrial tunnel on the anterior uterine surface.
  • In 1930, colleagues posthumously published the Pomeroy technique in the New York State Journal of Medicine.
  • In 1936 in Switzerland, Bosch performed the first laparoscopic tubal occlusion as a method for sterilization.
  • In the 1940s, Hajime Uchida developed his technique, which can be performed as an interval or puerperal procedure. He subsequently reported on his personal experience with more than 20,000 tubal sterilizations over 28 years without a known failure. [1]
  • In the 1960s, the era of laparoscopy began with unipolar electrocoagulation of the fallopian tube. Failure rates and safety concerns associated with both unipolar and bipolar electrosurgery led to the development of laparoscopic devices that do not require radiofrequency energy.
  • In 1973, Jaroslav Hulka devised a spring clip that could be applied laparoscopically. [2]
  • In 1981, Filshie introduced a titanium and silicone clip that was widely used in Europe. It was not introduced into the United States until the 1990s. [3]
  • In 2002, the Essure hysteroscopic sterilization procedure was approved for use in the United States.

Procedures to block the fallopian tube may be divided into those performed at the time of delivery or shortly thereafter, and those performed at another time. The latter are referred to as interval sterilization procedures. Minilaparotomy (Uchida, Pomeroy, or Parkland technique) is the most common procedure in the immediate postpartum period, performed via periumbilical incision following vaginal delivery. The proximity of the uterine fundus in relation to the umbilicus during the immediate postpartum period facilitates this approach. However, there is a much higher incidence of poststerilization remorse associated with procedures performed immediately following delivery.

The laparoscopic approach may be used at any time other than the postpartum period and involves either a single umbilical 10 mm port, or a smaller umbilical camera port and a secondary suprapubic port through which the various devices are introduced.

Although local anesthetic techniques have been described and used for transabdominal approaches, the vast majority of intraperitoneal tubal interruption procedures in the United States are performed using general or spinal anesthesia. And by definition, all require incisions that invade the peritoneal cavity, thereby introducing complications related to general or spinal anesthesia as well as injury to intra-abdominal structures.

Several attempts have been made in the past to achieve transcervical tubal blockage using radiofrequency, chemical scarring with quinacrine, and the injection of liquid silicone. However, these have all failed for safety or efficacy reasons.

In November 2002, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of Essure microinserts (Conceptus, Inc, Mountain View, Calif) for hysteroscopic sterilization. The devices consist of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers wrapped around a stainless steel core, surrounded by 24 coils of nickel-titanium alloy. After the microinserts are deployed, the PET fibers induce the tubal epithelium to undergo fibrosis, which results in proximal tubal occlusion. This process takes approximately 3 months to form complete occlusion, which is then documented by a hysterosalpingogram.

Previous
Next

Pathophysiology

Tubal sterilization results in mechanically blocking or interrupting the fallopian tubes to prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg.

Previous
Next

Indications

Tubal sterilization is indicated for women who want a permanent method of contraception and are free of any gynecologic pathology that would otherwise dictate an alternate procedure. Tubal sterilization is also indicated for women in whom a pregnancy could represent a significant clinical and medical risk.

Previous
Next

Relevant Anatomy

See the list below:

  • The 2 fallopian tubes (oviducts) lie on either side of the uterus in the upper margin (mesosalpinx) of the broad ligament. Each tube is divided into 4 parts. From lateral to medial, the parts are as follows:
  • The fimbriated end (infundibulum) is a bugle-shaped extremity with a fimbriated ostium that overlies the ovary, to which an elongated appendage (the fimbria ovarica) adheres.
  • The ampulla is wide, thin-walled, and somewhat tortuous and is the largest portion of the tube, both in length and caliber.
  • The isthmus is a narrow, straight, thin-walled portion of the tube immediately adjacent to the uterus. The ampullaryisthmic junction is the site where the fertilized egg pauses in its transit to the endometrial cavity, waiting for the progesterone produced by the corpus luteum to create a favorable environment for implantation. The isthmic portion of the fallopian tube is the site for all sterilization procedures that depend on intra-abdominal tubal occlusion. When a segment of tube is removed, as in the Pomeroy or Uchida technique, the isthmus is the preferred site of excision because of the relative ease of reanastomosis should the procedure be reversed in the future.
  • In the intrauterine or intramural portion of the tube, the lumen narrows to approximately 1 mm or less as it pierces the uterine wall, terminating in the tubal ostium, which is located on the superolateral aspect of the uterine cavity.

Although the mesonephric (wolffian) ducts degenerate in females, duct remnants may be sites of cyst formation.

  • Epoophoron (homologous to the epididymis) - Constantly lies in the lateral portion of the mesosalpinx and mesovarium
  • Paroophoron (homologous to the paradidymis) - Variably lies more medially in the mesosalpinx
  • Hydatid cysts of Morgagni (homologous to the appendix of epididymis) - Represent the most cranial remnant of the mesonephric duct
Previous
Next

Contraindications

Patient ambivalence regarding sterilization is an absolute contraindication. Even though surgically reversing the tubal occlusion at a later date or becoming pregnant through in vitro fertilization is technically feasible, the decision to proceed with sterilization should be considered permanent and irreversible. The cost and disability associated with tubal occlusion is miniscule compared with the expense and time involved in either tubal reanastomosis or assisted reproductive technologies. While the patient should make the request herself, be of sound mind, and not act under external duress; the physician should provide patients who have decided that their families are complete with information regarding the various sterilization options. Many patients may not be aware that a nonincisional, in-office, hysteroscopic method is available. If there is any doubt whatsoever, other long-term but not irreversible methods of contraception, such as the IUD, should be considered when not contraindicated.

Special legal and ethical criteria must be met in cases where the patient undergoing sterilization has a physical, psychological, or intellectual disability.

Any gynecologic malignancy or symptomatic gynecologic pathology (eg, pelvic relaxation, uterine tumors, ovarian tumors) in which a hysterectomy is indicated obviates the need for a tubal occlusion.

In the puerperium, defer sterilization if maternal or infant complications exist. While sterilizations performed in the immediate postpartum are accompanied by a high incidence of regret, even when both mother and baby are healthy, many physicians advocate performing all sterilizations as an interval procedure.

The laparoscopic approach is relatively contraindicated in patients with a diaphragmatic hernia (through the foramen of Morgagni). Limit the Trendelenburg position to 15°, limit intra-abdominal pressure to a maximum of 10 mm Hg, and perform the operation under endotracheal anesthesia.

The laparoscopic approach is also contraindicated in patients with severe cardiopulmonary disease or dysfunction. The pneumoperitoneum may compress the vena cava and azygous system and diminish cardiac return, leading to cardiac decompensation. The diaphragm may be splinted (thus reducing respiratory tidal flow) both by the weight of the intraabdominal

organs, which fall cephalad with the patient in the Trendelenburg position, and by the pneumoperitoneum. Absorption of gas from the pneumoperitoneum may further aggravate the build up of carbon dioxide. The resultant hypercarbia may cause cardiac arrhythmias.

Special consideration must be given to obese patients, who make up an increasingly large percentage of the population. The presence of morbid obesity and/or a history of multiple abdominal surgeries with adhesion formation takes the laparoscopic approach to sterilization out of the realm of elective, low-risk surgery. It would be difficult to justify the selection of a laparoscopic approach in such patients when lower-risk procedures are available.

A publication by the FDA reviewed the incidence of trocar injuries that were reported to the FDA. Between 1997 and 2002, 1300 trocar injuries and 30 deaths were reported, yielding a trocar-related injury rate of 3%. Not counting bowel injury from electrosurgery, wound infection, urinary tract infection, or anesthetic complications, with 300,000 laparoscopic sterilizations performed in the United States each year, that translates to a minimum of 9000 complications from laparoscopic sterilization each year.[4]

According to the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization, the odds ratio of complications from general or regional anesthesia is approximately 3 times that of local anesthesia.

The hysteroscopic insertion of microinserts for tubal occlusion may be safely performed in a physician's office under local anesthesia. It does not carry the operative risks incident to laparoscopy such as injury to bowel, bladder, or major vessels caused by trocar insertion or energy sources. The hysteroscopic approach may be safely used in cases of morbid obesity, abdominal scarring, and pelvic adhesions that would otherwise impede the abdominal approach to the fallopian tube. The hysteroscopic microinsert is contraindicated in patients allergic to nickel or contrast media, patients with active PID, patients in whom only 1 microinsert may be inserted, pregnancy, suspected pregnancy, or within 6 weeks of delivery or pregnancy termination.

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Robert K Zurawin, MD Associate Professor, Chief, Section of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine

Robert K Zurawin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, Texas Medical Association, AAGL, Harris County Medical Society, North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology

Disclosure: Received consulting fee from Ethicon for consulting; Received consulting fee from Bayer for consulting; Received consulting fee from Hologic for consulting.

Coauthor(s)

Avi J Sklar, MD, FACOG, FACS, FRCSC Co-Chief, Division of Gynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center

Avi J Sklar, MD, FACOG, FACS, FRCSC is a member of the following medical societies: American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Surgeons, Phi Beta Kappa, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Richard S Legro, MD Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Milton S Hershey Medical Center

Richard S Legro, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society of Reproductive Surgeons, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Endocrine Society, Phi Beta Kappa

Disclosure: Received honoraria from Korea National Institute of Health and National Institute of Health (Bethesda, MD) for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from Greater Toronto Area Reproductive Medicine Society (Toronto, ON, CA) for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (Washington, DC) for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology Research Thi.

Chief Editor

Michel E Rivlin, MD Former Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Mississippi School of Medicine

Michel E Rivlin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, Mississippi State Medical Association, Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Anthony Charles Sciscione, DO Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Drexel University College of Medicine; Director, Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Christiana Care Health System; Director, Delaware Center for Maternal and Fetal Medicine

Anthony Charles Sciscione, DO is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References
  1. Uchida H. Uchida tubal sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975 Jan 15. 121(2):153-8. [Medline].

  2. Hulka JF, Fishburne JI, Mercer JP, Omran KF. Laparoscopic sterilization with a spring clip: a report of the first fifty cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973 Jul 1. 116(5):715-8. [Medline].

  3. Filshie GM, Casey D, Pogmore JR, Dutton AG, Symonds EM, Peake AB. The titanium/silicone rubber clip for female sterilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981 Jun. 88(6):655-62. [Medline].

  4. US Food and Drug Administration. Laparoscopic Trocar Injuries:. A report from a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Systematic Technology Assessment of Medical Products (STAMP) Committee. 2003;. [Full Text].

  5. Lawrie TA, Nardin JM, Kulier R, Boulvain M. Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Feb 16. 2:CD003034. [Medline].

  6. Gariepy AM, Creinin MD, Schwarz EB, Smith KJ. Reliability of laparoscopic compared with hysteroscopic sterilization at 1 year: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Aug. 118(2 Pt 1):273-9. [Medline].

  7. Hopkins MR, Creedon DJ, Wagie AE, Williams AR, Famuyide AO. Retrospective cost analysis comparing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral tubal coagulation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007 Jan-Feb. 14(1):97-102. [Medline].

  8. Levie MD, Chudnoff SG. Office hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: a critical cost analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005 Jul-Aug. 12(4):318-22. [Medline].

  9. Levie MD, Chudnoff SG. Prospective analysis of office-based hysteroscopic sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006 Mar-Apr. 13(2):98-101. [Medline].

  10. Bradley L. Long-Term Follow-Up of Hysteroscopic Sterilization with the Essure Microinsert. Supplement to The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gyenocology. Fertil Steril. 2008. 15(6):S14-S15.

  11. Essuremd. ESS305 Information for Use (IFU). [Full Text].

  12. Kerin JF, Carignan CS, Cher D. The safety and effectiveness of a new hysteroscopic method for permanent birth control: results of the first Essure pbc clinical study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001 Nov. 41(4):364-70. [Medline].

  13. Kerin JF, Cooper JM, Price T, Herendael BJ, Cayuela-Font E, Cher D. Hysteroscopic sterilization using a micro-insert device: results of a multicentre Phase II study. Hum Reprod. 2003 Jun. 18(6):1223-30. [Medline].

  14. Kerin JF, Munday DN, Ritossa MG, Pesce A, Rosen D. Essure hysteroscopic sterilization: results based on utilizing a new coil catheter delivery system. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2004 Aug. 11(3):388-93. [Medline].

  15. Kerin JF, Levy BS. Ultrasound: an effective method for localization of the echogenic Essure sterilization micro-insert: correlation with radiologic evaluations. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005 Jan-Feb. 12(1):50-4. [Medline].

  16. Ubeda A, Labastida R, Dexeus S. Essure: a new device for hysteroscopic tubal sterilization in an outpatient setting. Fertil Steril. 2004 Jul. 82(1):196-9. [Medline].

  17. Arjona JE, Miño M, Cordón J, Povedano B, Pelegrin B, Castelo-Branco C. Satisfaction and tolerance with office hysteroscopic tubal sterilization. Fertil Steril. 2008 Oct. 90(4):1182-6. [Medline].

  18. Harrison MS, DiNapoli MN, Westhoff CL. Reducing postoperative pain after tubal ligation with rings or clips: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jul. 124(1):68-75. [Medline].

  19. Vancaillie TG, Anderson TL, Johns DA. A 12-month prospective evaluation of transcervical sterilization using implantable polymer matrices. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Dec. 112(6):1270-7. [Medline].

  20. Rodriguez MI, Edelman AB, Kapp N. Postpartum sterilization with the titanium clip: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul. 118(1):143-7. [Medline].

  21. Syed R, Levy J, Childers ME. Pain associated with hysteroscopic sterilization. JSLS. 2007 Jan-Mar. 11(1):63-5. [Medline].

  22. Levie M, Chudnoff S, Kaiser B, Levy B, Snyder D. Multicenter Trial of Hysteroscopic Sterilization in the Office Setting Under Local Anesthesia: Patient Assessment of Procedural Pain and Satisfaction. Washington DC. AAGL. 2007.

  23. Schepens JJ, Mol BW, Wiegerinck MA, Houterman S, Koks CA. Pregnancy outcomes and prognostic factors from tubal sterilization reversal by sutureless laparoscopical re-anastomosis: a retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2010 Nov 28. [Medline].

  24. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG technical bulletin. Sterilization. Number 222--April 1996 (replaces no. 113, February 1988). American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1996 Jun. 53(3):281-8. [Medline].

  25. Bartz D, Greenberg JA. Sterilization in the United States. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008. 1(1):23-32. [Medline].

  26. Bishop E, Nelms WF. A simple method of tubal sterilization. NY State J Med. 1930. 30:214-6.

  27. Borgatta L, et al. Randomized trial of local anesthetic application for relief of postoperative pain after tubal sterilization with Fallope rings. Am J Gynecol Health. 1991. 5:11-14.

  28. Cooper JM, Carignan CS, Cher D, Kerin JF,. Microinsert nonincisional hysteroscopic sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jul. 102(1):59-67. [Medline].

  29. Cunanan RG Jr, Courey NG, Lippes J. Complications of laparoscopic tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Apr. 55(4):501-6. [Medline].

  30. Gentile GP, Kaufman SC, Helbig DW. Is there any evidence for a post-tubal sterilization syndrome?. Fertil Steril. 1998 Feb. 69(2):179-86. [Medline].

  31. Green A, Purdie D, Bain C, Siskind V, Russell P, Quinn M, et al. Tubal sterilisation, hysterectomy and decreased risk of ovarian cancer. Survey of Women's Health Study Group. Int J Cancer. 1997 Jun 11. 71(6):948-51. [Medline].

  32. Grimes DA, Wallach M. Female sterilization. Grimes DA, Wallach M, eds. Modern Contraception: Updates from the Contraception Report. Totowa, NJ: Emron; 1997. 167-90.

  33. Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun. 93(6):889-95. [Medline].

  34. Jamieson DJ, Hillis SD, Duerr A, Marchbanks PA, Costello C, Peterson HB. Complications of interval laparoscopic tubal sterilization: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Dec. 96(6):997-1002. [Medline].

  35. Levgur M, Duvivier R. Pelvic inflammatory disease after tubal sterilization: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2000 Jan. 55(1):41-50. [Medline].

  36. Linn ES. Progress in contraception: new technology. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2003 Jul-Aug. 48(4):182-91. [Medline].

  37. Lipscomb GH, Spellman JR, Ling FW. The effect of same-day pregnancy testing on the incidence of luteal phase pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Sep. 82(3):411-3. [Medline].

  38. Lipscomb GH, Stovall TG, Ramanathan JA, Ling FW. Comparison of silastic rings and electrocoagulation for laparoscopic tubal ligation under local anesthesia. Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Oct. 80(4):645-9. [Medline].

  39. McSwain H, Shaw C, Hall LD. Placement of the Essure permanent birth control device with fluoroscopic guidance: a novel method for tubal sterilization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005 Jul. 16(7):1007-12. [Medline].

  40. Moore CL, Vasquez NF, Lin H, Kaplan LJ. Major vascular injury after laparoscopic tubal ligation. J Emerg Med. 2005 Jul. 29(1):67-71. [Medline].

  41. Paransky OI, Zurawin RK. Management of menstrual problems and contraception in adolescents with mental retardation: a medical, legal, and ethical review with new suggested guidelines. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2003 Aug. 16(4):223-35. [Medline].

  42. Pati S, Cullins V. Female sterilization. Evidence. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2000 Dec. 27(4):859-99. [Medline].

  43. Peterson HB, Jeng G, Folger SG, Hillis SA, Marchbanks PA, Wilcox LS. The risk of menstrual abnormalities after tubal sterilization. U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2000 Dec 7. 343(23):1681-7. [Medline].

  44. Peterson HB, Pollack AE, Warshaw JS. Tubal sterilization. Rock JA, Thompson JD, eds. Te Linde's Operative Gynecology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. 74(1): 529-47.

  45. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, Wilcox LS, Tylor LR, Trussell J. The risk of ectopic pregnancy after tubal sterilization. U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. N Engl J Med. 1997 Mar 13. 336(11):762-7. [Medline].

  46. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, Wilcox LS, Tylor LR, Trussell J. The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Apr. 174(4):1161-8; discussion 1168-70. [Medline].

  47. Piccinino LJ, Mosher WD. Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982-1995. Fam Plann Perspect. 1998 Jan-Feb. 30(1):4-10, 46. [Medline].

  48. Pollack A,. ACOG practice bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 46, September 2003. (Replaces technical bulletin number 222, April 1996). Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Sep. 102(3):647-58. [Medline].

  49. Ricci JV. Sterilization. One Hundred Years of Gynaecology, 1800-1900. Philadelphia, Pa: Blakiston Co; 1945. 539-40.

  50. Rosen DM. Learning curve for hysteroscopic sterilisation: lessons from the first 80 cases. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004 Feb. 44(1):62-4. [Medline].

  51. Rust OA, Magann EF. Prophylaxis for subacute bacterial endocarditis in obstetrics and gynecology. Primary Care Update Obstet Gynecol. 1994. 1:183.

  52. Ryder RM, Vaughan MC. Laparoscopic tubal sterilization. Methods, effectiveness, and sequelae. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1999 Mar. 26(1):83-97. [Medline].

  53. Shavell VI, Abdallah ME, Shade GH Jr, Diamond MP, Berman JM. Trends in sterilization since the introduction of Essure hysteroscopic sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009 Jan-Feb. 16(1):22-7. [Medline].

  54. Shellock FG. New metallic implant used for permanent contraception in women: evaluation of MR safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jun. 178(6):1513-6. [Medline].

  55. Silver AL. Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, and risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA. 1994 Apr 27. 271(16):1235; author reply 1236-7. [Medline].

  56. Soderstrom RM. Sterilization failures and their causes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Jun 15. 152(4):395-403. [Medline].

  57. Soderstrom RM, Levy BS, Engel T. Reducing bipolar sterilization failures. Obstet Gynecol. 1989 Jul. 74(1):60-3. [Medline].

  58. Trussell J, Guilbert E, Hedley A. Sterilization failure, sterilization reversal, and pregnancy after sterilization reversal in Quebec. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Apr. 101(4):677-84. [Medline].

  59. Tulandi T. Tubal sterilization. N Engl J Med. 1997 Mar 13. 336(11):796-7. [Medline].

  60. Valle RF, Carignan CS, Wright TC,. Tissue response to the STOP microcoil transcervical permanent contraceptive device: results from a prehysterectomy study. Fertil Steril. 2001 Nov. 76(5):974-80. [Medline].

  61. Westhoff C, Davis A. Tubal sterilization: focus on the U.S. experience. Fertil Steril. 2000 May. 73(5):913-22. [Medline].

  62. Wilcox LS, Chu SY, Eaker ED, Zeger SL, Peterson HB. Risk factors for regret after tubal sterilization: 5 years of follow-up in a prospective study. Fertil Steril. 1991 May. 55(5):927-33. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
Elevation of the fallopian tube through the incision.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.