State-of-the-art of non-hormonal methods of contraception: V. Female sterilisation

被引:12
作者
Beerthuizen, Rob [1 ]
机构
[1] Stichting Anticonceptie Nederland, NL-7101 AS Winterswijk, Netherlands
关键词
LAPAROSCOPIC TUBAL-STERILIZATION; UNITED-STATES; RISK; LIGATION; OVARIAN; SILICONE; DEVICE; CLIP;
D O I
10.3109/13625181003597037
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Material and methods A systematic Medline and Cochrane Library review of the literature on technique, effectiveness, safety and complications of female sterilisation. Keywords used for research were 'female sterilisation', 'tubal occlusion', 'history', 'counselling', 'hysteroscopy', 'laparoscopy', 'complications' and 'effectiveness'. Results Worldwide over 220 million couples have resorted to either male (nearly 43 million) or female sterilisation (180 million). In this review the different methods of female sterilisation are described and their advantages and disadvantages discussed. Tubal occlusion is carried out via (mini-) laparotomy, laparoscopy or hysteroscopy. The Ovabloc (R), Essure (R) and Adiana (R) permanent contraception systems make use of the latter route. Conclusions Female sterilisation via the transcervical route is an outpatient or office procedure; it is performed under local anaesthesia or even without anaesthesia. Its complication rate is low. It should be preferred to the abdominal procedures provided the equipment and the experience required are available. Counselling should include information on vasectomy for the partner as well as on alternative long-acting reversible contraceptives. The ten-year cumulative pregnancy rate of sterilisation techniques ranges from 0.1 to 3.6 per 1000 procedures. The life-time risk of failure is around 1/200.
引用
收藏
页码:124 / 135
页数:12
相关论文
共 51 条
[1]  
*AD, PERM CONTR PROC AN
[2]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE OF
[3]   Satisfaction and tolerance with office hysteroscopic tubal sterilization [J].
Arjona, Jose E. ;
Mino, Monica ;
Cordon, Javier ;
Povedano, Balbino ;
Pelegrin, Blas ;
Castelo-Branco, Camil .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2008, 90 (04) :1182-1186
[4]   A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT LAPAROSCOPIC STERILIZATION OCCLUSION TECHNIQUES IN 24,439 PROCEDURES [J].
BHIWANDIWALA, PP ;
MUMFORD, SD ;
FELDBLUM, PJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1982, 144 (03) :319-331
[5]  
BLUNDELL J, 1827, LANCET, V8, P65
[6]  
Chamberlain G., 1978, GYNAECOLOGICAL LAPAR
[7]  
COOPER JM, 1992, CLIN OBSTET GYNECOL, V35, P282
[8]  
Cornelison TL, 1997, CANCER DETECT PREV, V21, P1
[9]  
De Graaf A, 2009, GEBOORTEREGELING NED
[10]  
DROEGEMUELLER W, 1978, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V131, P1