Permanent Contraception for Women

Abstract

Permanent contraception is a highly desired and commonly used contraceptive option for women around the world who desire never to become pregnant. Current methods of female permanent contraception require surgery. Postpartum tubal ligation and interval surgical tubal ligation are safe and effective, do not interfere with menstrual cycles, and require no ongoing cost or medical checkups. Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion offers a less invasive surgical approach, but requires an imaging study for verification of correct placement. However, not all women have access to a surgeon trained to provide permanent contraception, or they may face other prohibitive logistic or financial burdens. The development of novel permanent contraception methods that are immediately effective and/or nonsurgical could help improve access to and acceptability of permanent contraception. The expansion of permanent contraception options could help women achieve their family planning goals and reduce unintended pregnancies.

Keywords

permanent contraception - sterilization - tubal ligation

• References

• 1 Peterson HB. Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (1) 189-203
• 2 World Contraceptive Use 2012 . Available at: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/family/contraceptive-wallchart-2013.shtml . Accessed June 23, 2015
• 3 Jensen JT. Permanent contraception: modern approaches justify a new name. Contraception 2014; 89 (6) 493-494
• 4 Paulsen D. Female reproductive system. In: Histology & Cell Biology: Examination and Board Review. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2010. : Chapter 23
• 5 Madari S, Varma R, Gupta J. A comparison of the modified Pomeroy tubal ligation and Filshie clips for immediate postpartum sterilisation: a systematic review. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2011; 16 (5) 341-349
• 6 Lawrie TA, Nardin JM, Kulier R, Boulvain M. Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation. . In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2011. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003034.pub2/abstract . Accessed June 24, 2015
• 7 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; 174 (4) 1161-1168 , discussion 1168–1170
• 8 Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, Wilcox LS, Tylor LR, Trussell J ; U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. The risk of ectopic pregnancy after tubal sterilization. N Engl J Med 1997; 336 (11) 762-767
• 9 Oligbo N, Revicky V, Udeh R. Pomeroy technique or Filshie clips for postpartum sterilisation? Retrospective study on comparison between Pomeroy procedure and Filshie clips for a tubal occlusion at the time of Caesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010; 281 (6) 1073-1075
• 10 Rodriguez MI, Seuc A, Sokal DC. Comparative efficacy of postpartum sterilisation with the titanium clip versus partial salpingectomy: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2013; 120 (1) 108-112
• 11 Rodriguez MI, Edelman AB, Kapp N. Postpartum sterilization with the titanium clip: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (1) 143-147
• 12 Malacova E, Kemp A, Hart R, Jama-Alol K, Preen DB. Long-term risk of ectopic pregnancy varies by method of tubal sterilization: a whole-population study. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (3) 728-734
• 13 Peterson HB, Xia Z, Wilcox LS, Tylor LR, Trussell J ; U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. Pregnancy after tubal sterilization with bipolar electrocoagulation. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94 (2) 163-167
• 14 Huggins GR, Sondheimer SJ. Complications of female sterilization: immediate and delayed. Fertil Steril 1984; 41 (3) 337-355
• 15 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; 96 (6) 997-1002
• 16 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 133: benefits and risks of sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121 (2, Pt 1): 392-404
• 17 Erickson BK, Conner MG, Landen Jr CN. The role of the fallopian tube in the origin of ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (5) 409-414
• 18 Jarboe EA, Miron A, Carlson JW , et al. Coexisting intraepithelial serous carcinomas of the endometrium and fallopian tube: frequency and potential significance. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2009; 28 (4) 308-315
• 19 Vang R, Shih IeM, Kurman RJ. Ovarian low-grade and high-grade serous carcinoma: pathogenesis, clinicopathologic and molecular biologic features, and diagnostic problems. Adv Anat Pathol 2009; 16 (5) 267-282
• 20 Woodruff JD. The pathogenesis of ovarian neoplasia. Johns Hopkins Med J 1979; 144 (4) 117-120
• 21 Creinin MD, Zite N. Female tubal sterilization: the time has come to routinely consider removal. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (3) 596-599
• 22 Backes FJ. Salpingectomy, why not?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (5) 385-386
• 23 McAlpine JN, Hanley GE, Woo MMM , et al; Ovarian Cancer Research Program of British Columbia. Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (5) 471.e1-471.e11
• 24 Kwon JS, McAlpine JN, Hanley GE , et al. Costs and benefits of opportunistic salpingectomy as an ovarian cancer prevention strategy. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125 (2) 338-345
• 25 Falconer H, Yin L, Grönberg H, Altman D. Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107 (2) dju410
• 26 Cibula D, Widschwendter M, Zikan M, Dusek L. Underlying mechanisms of ovarian cancer risk reduction after tubal ligation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90 (6) 559-563
• 27 Lessard-Anderson CR, Handlogten KS, Molitor RJ , et al. Effect of tubal sterilization technique on risk of serous epithelial ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 135 (3) 423-427
• 28 Cibula D, Widschwendter M, Májek O, Dusek L. Tubal ligation and the risk of ovarian cancer: review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17 (1) 55-67
• 29 Sieh W, Salvador S, McGuire V , et al; Australian Cancer Study (Ovarian Cancer); Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group; Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. Tubal ligation and risk of ovarian cancer subtypes: a pooled analysis of case-control studies. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42 (2) 579-589
• 30 Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Committee opinion no. 620: Salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125 (1) 279-281
• 31 Shavell VI, Abdallah ME, Shade Jr GH, Diamond MP, Berman JM. Trends in sterilization since the introduction of Essure hysteroscopic sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009; 16 (1) 22-27
• 32 Kerin JF, Cooper JM, Price T , et al. Hysteroscopic sterilization using a micro-insert device: results of a multicentre Phase II study. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (6) 1223-1230
• 33 Levie M, Weiss G, Kaiser B, Daif J, Chudnoff SG. Analysis of pain and satisfaction with office-based hysteroscopic sterilization. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (4) 1189-1194
• 34 Conceptus. Essure permanent birth control. Essuremd.com. Available at: http://www.essuremd.com/about-essure/clinical-data . Published August 5, 2014. Accessed June 22, 2015
• 35 Gariepy AM, Creinin MD, Smith KJ, Xu X. Probability of pregnancy after sterilization: a comparison of hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic sterilization. Contraception 2014; 90 (2) 174-181
• 36 Munro MG, Nichols JE, Levy B, Vleugels MPH, Veersema S. Hysteroscopic sterilization: 10-year retrospective analysis of worldwide pregnancy reports. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21 (2) 245-251
• 37 Cleary TP, Tepper NK, Cwiak C , et al. Pregnancies after hysteroscopic sterilization: a systematic review. Contraception 2013; 87 (5) 539-548
• 38 Adelman MR, Dassel MW, Sharp HT. Management of complications encountered with Essure hysteroscopic sterilization: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21 (5) 733-743
• 39 Thurkow AL. AltaSeal hysteroscopic sterilization: the new challenger to Essure?. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 18 (6, Suppl): S38
• 40 Thiel J, Rattray D, Cher DJ. Pre-hysterectomy assessment of immediate tubal occlusion with the third-generation ESSURE insert (ESS505). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21 (6) 1055-1060
• 41 Xu B, Zhu KA, Xu D, Aili A. Management of long-term and reversible hysteroscopic sterilization: a novel device with nickel-titanium shape memory alloy. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014; 12 (1) 61
• 42 van der Leij G, van Krimpen C. Impact of Ovabloc intratubal polymer on the morphology of the fallopian tube. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1995; 14 (2) 167-173
• 43 la Chapelle CF, Veersema S, Brölmann HAM, Jansen FW. Effectiveness and feasibility of hysteroscopic sterilization techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2015; 103 (6) 1516-25.e1 , 3
• 44 Eddy CA, Pauerstein CJ. Anatomic and physiologic factors affecting the development of transcervical sterilization techniques. In: Female Transcervical Sterilization: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Non-Surgical Methods for Female Tubal Occlusion June 22–24, 1982. Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, PA: Harper & Row; 1983:7–23
• 45 Zatuchni G, Shelton J, Goldsmith A, Sciarra J eds. Female transcervical sterilization. In: International Workshop on Non-Surgical Methods for Female Tubal Occlusion. Chicago, IL; 1982
• 46 Lippes J. Quinacrine sterilization (QS): time for reconsideration. Contraception 2015; 92 (2) 91-95
• 47 Sokal DC, Trujillo V, Guzmán SC, Guzman-Serani R, Wheeless A, Hubacher D. Cancer risk after sterilization with transcervical quinacrine: updated findings from a Chilean cohort. Contraception 2010; 81 (1) 75-78
• 48 Feied C. Sclerosing solutions. In: Fronek H, ed. The Fundamentals of Phlebology: Venous Disease for Clinicians. London, UK: RSM Press; 2007
• 49 Jensen JT, Hanna C, Yao S , et al. Blockade of tubal patency following transcervical administration of polidocanol foam: initial studies in rhesus macaques. Contraception 2014; 89 (6) 540-549
• 50 Jensen JT, Hanna C, Yao S, Bauer C, Morgan TK, Slayden OD. Characterization of tubal occlusion after transcervical polidocanol foam (PF) infusion in baboons. Contraception 2015; 92 (2) 96-102
• 51 Harrington EK, Gordon D, Osgood-Roach I, Jensen JT, Aengst J. Conceptualizing risk and effectiveness: a qualitative study of women's and providers' perceptions of nonsurgical female permanent contraception. Contraception 2015; 92 (2) 128-134
• 52 Patil E, Thurmond A. The history and current status of fallopian tube pressures - developing alternate methods for confirmation of tubal occlusion. Contraception 2015; 92 (2) 124-127
• 53 Patil E, Jensen JT. Update on permanent contraception options for women. [Review] Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015; 27 (6) 465-470
• 54 Rodriguez MI, Gordon-Maclean C. The safety, efficacy and acceptability of task sharing tubal sterilization to midlevel providers: a systematic review. Contraception 2014; 89 (6) 504-511
• 55 Gordon-Maclean C, Nantayi LK, Quinn H, Ngo TD. Safety and acceptability of tubal ligation procedures performed by trained clinical officers in rural Uganda. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 124 (1) 34-37
• 56 Borrero S, Zite N, Potter JE, Trussell J, Smith K. Potential unintended pregnancies averted and cost savings associated with a revised Medicaid sterilization policy. Contraception 2013; 88 (6) 691-696
• 57 Krashin JW, Edelman AB, Nichols MD, Allen AJ, Caughey AB, Rodriguez MI. Prohibiting consent: what are the costs of denying permanent contraception concurrent with abortion care?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (1) 76.e1-76.e10
• 58 Moaddab A, McCullough LB, Chervenak FA , et al. Health care justice and its implications for current policy of a mandatory waiting period for elective tubal sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (6) 736-739
• 59 Sharma DC. India's sterilisation scandal. Lancet 2014; 384 (9961) e68-e69