Essure® present controversies and 5 years' learned lessons: a retrospective study with short- and long-term follow-up
- PMID: 29046622
- PMCID: PMC5626789
- DOI: 10.1186/s10397-017-1023-3
Essure® present controversies and 5 years' learned lessons: a retrospective study with short- and long-term follow-up
Abstract
Background: The risk-benefit of contraception with Essure® is being readdressed due to an increase of reports of adverse effects with this device. Our aim was to proceed to an internal quality evaluation and to identify opportunities for protocol improvement. We proceeded to a one-center, retrospective consecutive case series of women admitted for Essure® placement, from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2016 (5 years).
Results: In a total of 274 women, technical difficulties were mainly unilateral, with no acute or short-term severe complications. The procedure was brief (median 3.2 min, IQR 2.5-5.2) and moderately painful (median of 4 in a 0-10 scale; IQR 3-5). At 3 months, the failure rate was 2%, with no pregnancies. Second surgery indication (< 1%) resumed to a case of nickel hypersensitivity. At 1 year, pregnancy rate was 1%. Ninety-eight percent of the patients would recommend the method.
Conclusions: We identified high patient satisfaction and low failure rates, both at short and long term. Investigation about whether some women still have patent tubes at the 3-month follow-up could lead to protocol improvement. It is important that clinicians look for second causes for adverse effects related to Essure® and avoid the erroneous indication for implant removal. Long follow-up allowed for both internal quality evaluation and clarification of misconception; it could possibly also have contributed to patient satisfaction.
Keywords: Counseling; Hysteroscopy; Patient satisfaction; Pelvic pain; Sterilization.
Conflict of interest statement
Authors’ information
Nothing to declare.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was authorized by the Ethics Committee of Hospital Dr. Nélio Mendonça.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Similar articles
-
Essure Permanent Birth Control, Effectiveness and Safety: An Italian 11-Year Survey.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017 May-Jun;24(4):640-645. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.004. Epub 2017 Feb 14. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017. PMID: 28232037
-
Hysteroscopic Essure Inserts for Permanent Contraception: Extended Follow-Up Results of a Phase III Multicenter International Study.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Sep-Oct;22(6):951-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.04.017. Epub 2015 Apr 24. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015. PMID: 25917278 Clinical Trial.
-
Safety and patients' satisfaction after hysteroscopic sterilisation.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Apr;38(3):377-381. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2017.1362549. Epub 2017 Oct 19. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018. PMID: 29046105
-
Essure® permanent birth control effectiveness: a seven-year survey.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Jun;168(2):134-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.12.042. Epub 2013 Jan 30. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013. PMID: 23375900 Review.
-
Essure: a review six years later.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009 May-Jun;16(3):282-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.02.009. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009. PMID: 19423060 Review.
Cited by
-
ART Outcomes After Hysteroscopic Proximal Tubal Occlusion Versus Laparoscopic Salpingectomy for Hydrosalpinx Management in Endometriosis Patients.Reprod Sci. 2022 Feb;29(2):427-435. doi: 10.1007/s43032-021-00737-6. Epub 2021 Oct 12. Reprod Sci. 2022. PMID: 34642914
-
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.
References
-
- Carney PI, Yao J, Lin J, Law A. Comparison of healthcare costs among commercially insured women in the United States who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization versus laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation sterilization. J Women’s Health (Larchmt) 2017;26(5):483–490. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6035. - DOI - PubMed
-
- American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL). Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL Advisory Statement: Essure Hysteroscopic Sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(5):658–59. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.005 - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources