Hysteroscopic permanent tubal sterilization using a nitinol-dacron intratubal device without anaesthesia in the outpatient setting: procedure feasibility and effectiveness

• Published in: Human reproduction (Oxford) Vol. 20; no. 12; pp. 3419 - 3422
• Main Authors: Litta, P., Cosmi, E., Sacco, G., Saccardi, C., Ciavattini, A., Ambrosini, G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 01.12.2005; Oxford Publishing Limited (England)
• Subjects: Adult; Alloys - chemistry; Anesthesia; Biological and medical sciences; Equipment Design; Female; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Humans; Hysteroscopy - methods; intratubal device; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; outpatient hysteroscopy; Outpatients; Pain; Pain Measurement; Patient Compliance; Patient Satisfaction; Polyethylene Terephthalates - chemistry; Prospective Studies; Sterilization, Tubal - methods; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; tubal sterilization; tubal sterilization; intratubal device; outpatient hysteroscopy; Human; Tubal sterilization; Hysteroscopy; intratubal device/outpatient hysteroscopy/tubal sterilization; Vertebrata; Mammalia; Device; Feasibility; Ambulatory
• ISSN: 0268-1161; 1460-2350
• DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei232

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopic permanent tubal sterilization has recently been introduced, resulting in a non-invasive, safe and effective technique. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of outpatient hysteroscopic tubal sterilization using a nitinol-dacron intratubal device without anaesthesia and to assess patient procedure compliance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We untertook a prospective study of 36 consecutive cases of outpatient hysteroscopic tubal sterilization using a nitinol-dacron intratubal device without anaesthesia. Tubal sterilization was performed by placing the device with the aid of a 5.2-mm continuous-flow operative hysteroscope. At the end of the procedure women were asked to rate the pain experienced on a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0, no discomfort to 100, severe discomfort). Successful device placement was assessed after 3 months by hysterosalpingography and diagnostic hysteroscopy. RESULTS: Successful bilateral placement was obtained in 32 patients (88.9%); in one (2.8%) the placement was monolateral; and in three (8.3%) the procedure failed. Mean operating time was 8.6 ± 5.3 min. A mean VAS of 36.1 ± 23.9 was recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The nitinol-dacron intratubal device is safe, appears to be effective long-term, is non-invasive and can be used in the outpatient setting without anaesthesia. Low-level discomfort was experienced by the patients. Limitations of its use include that it is not effective immediately, it is irreversible, it requires special equipment and training, and it is difficult to use in cases of uterine anomalies. We conclude that this method may be offered to all woman asking for permanent tubal sterilization, particularly those who refuse or have contraindications for anaesthesia.