Analysis of pain and satisfaction with office-based hysteroscopic sterilization
- PMID: 19683232
- DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.07.994
Analysis of pain and satisfaction with office-based hysteroscopic sterilization
Abstract
Objective: To assess pain and patient satisfaction with office-based hysteroscopic sterilization.
Design: This prospective, observational study was designed to assess patient pain perception and satisfaction with office-based hysteroscopic sterilization using the Essure device (Conceptus, Mountain View, CA).
Setting: Faculty practice office at an inner-city urban medical center.
Patient(s): Women seeking hysteroscopic sterilization.
Intervention(s): Office hysteroscopic sterilization under local anesthesia.
Main outcome measure(s): Pain assessed at the time of the procedure by a 0-10 visual scale and satisfaction by a 1-5 scale.
Result(s): From June 2003 to June 2006, 209 patients were recruited. The mean scores for average procedural pain, most procedural pain, and average menstrual pain were 2.6+/-2.1, 3.3+/-2.5, and 3.6+/-2.6, respectively. Standardized pain scores revealed that 149 subjects (70%) experienced average pain that was less than or equal to the pain experienced with their menses. Mean satisfaction rating for the procedure was 4.7+/-0.71.
Conclusion(s): Office-based hysteroscopic sterilization performed with local anesthesia alone is well tolerated, and patients are satisfied with this method for permanent sterilization.
Copyright (c) 2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Satisfaction and tolerance with office hysteroscopic tubal sterilization.Fertil Steril. 2008 Oct;90(4):1182-6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.08.007. Epub 2008 Jan 16. Fertil Steril. 2008. PMID: 18201703 Clinical Trial.
-
Prospective analysis of office-based hysteroscopic sterilization.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006 Mar-Apr;13(2):98-101. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.11.010. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006. PMID: 16527710
-
Vaginoscopy compared to traditional hysteroscopy for hysteroscopic sterilization. A randomized trial.J Reprod Med. 2015 Jan-Feb;60(1-2):43-7. J Reprod Med. 2015. PMID: 25745750 Clinical Trial.
-
Hysteroscopic sterilization in the office setting.Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2013 Dec;40(4):671-85. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2013.08.007. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2013. PMID: 24286995 Review.
-
Current techniques and outcomes in hysteroscopic sterilization: current evidence, considerations, and complications with hysteroscopic sterilization micro inserts.Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;29(4):218-224. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000369. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017. PMID: 28537948 Review.
Cited by
-
Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of the Essure™ procedure.Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011 Apr 28;5:207-12. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S12400. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011. PMID: 21573052 Free PMC article.
-
Preprocedure patient preferences and attitudes toward permanent contraceptive options.Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;6:331-6. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S30247. Epub 2012 Apr 17. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012. PMID: 22563241 Free PMC article.
-
A Meta-Analysis of Bilateral Essure® Procedural Placement Success Rates on First Attempt.J Gynecol Surg. 2015 Dec 1;31(6):308-317. doi: 10.1089/gyn.2015.0054. J Gynecol Surg. 2015. PMID: 26633935 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Definitive Contraception: Trends in a Ten-year Interval.Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017 Jul;39(7):344-349. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1602706. Epub 2017 May 4. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017. PMID: 28472830 Free PMC article.
-
Factors Associated with Negative Patient Experiences with Essure Sterilization.JSLS. 2020 Jan-Mar;24(1):e2019.00065. doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2019.00065. JSLS. 2020. PMID: 32206011 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources