ealing hospital nhs trust service evaluation of laparoscopic and hysteroscopic sterilisation a smaa...
TRANSCRIPT
Ealing HospitalNHS Trust
Service Evaluation of Laparoscopic and Hysteroscopic SterilisationA S M A A A L - K U F A I S H I 1 , S E O S O O N S E A H 2 , T A N T O H L I C K 1
Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1 and Anaesthetics 2 , Ealing Hospital NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
INTRODUCTION Although hysteroscopic sterilisation was approved in 2001 and is found
to be safe and effective 1, its availability in the National Health Service is
limited. We introduced this procedure in 2010 as the second London
centre for ESSURE hysteroscopic sterilisation (EHS). We sought to
compare the service received by our patients undergoing both EHS and
laparoscopic Filshie clip sterilisation (LFCS) in our first year.
METHODSA retrospective cohort analysis of all female sterilisations performed over
a 1 year period was undertaken. Cases were identified by coding and
theatre bookings. Sterilisation at Caesarean section was excluded. Data
from patient records were entered into Microsoft Excel for analysis.
Table 1. Demographics and counselling recevied by women undergoing ESSURE hysteroscopic sterilisation and laparoscopic sterilisation.
References 1: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009) Hysteroscopic sterilisation by tubal cannulation and placement of intrafallopian implants. IPG 315. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2: Borley J, Shabajee N, Tan TL. A kink is not always a perforation; assessing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization placement. Fert Steril 2011; 95(7): 2429.
RESULTS A total of 42 female sterilisations were identified of which 7 were
excluded as they were performed during Caesarean section. Ten EHS and
25 LFCS were compared. There was no significant difference in the
demographics of the women. However, in contrast to EHS patients who
were all briefed on LARCs, ESSURE and vasectomy, women undergoing
LFCS were not always informed of these options (table 1).
All LFCS patients underwent general anaesthetic while about 40% of EHS
patient chose sedation rather than general anaesthetic. The number of
incisions was significantly lower in the EHS group than the LFCS group:
0.2 ± 0.6 vs 2.0 ± 0.2 (p < 0.0001). Blood loss in both group were not
significant but was lower in the EHS group: 5.0 ± 6.3 vs 28.0 ± 20.2 ml (p
= 0.0259). However, analysis was difficult as it was only documented in
60% of EHS and 20% of LFCS.
Three LFCS patients were admitted for pain control. No EHS patient was
admitted for pain control but 1 was admitted because of closure of day
surgery unit. One EHS patient was re-admitted 3 days later for 1 day with
suspected Fallopian tube perforation and underwent laparoscopy which
showed chronic pelvic adhesion but no perforation 2. One LFCS patient
was re-admitted twice, and another patient once for pain control.
No pregnancies were reported during the 3 month EHS follow-up. There
was however an ESSURE insert expulsion found in this series (figure 1).
Filshie clip placement was not verified as LFCS was not followed-up.
CONCLUSIONS Both forms of sterilisation are safe. However, patients undergoing EHS
may avoid surgical incision, blood loss and general anaesthetic. They are
also less likely to require admission or re-admission for pain control.
Patients undergoing LFCS may not be fully informed of their birth control
options and this maybe a reflection of a persistent lack of awareness of
the options available amongst patients and their clinicians.
EHS allows permanent contraception to be offered with lower morbidity
and in an outpatient or day case setting. This is both advantages for the
woman and the hospital.
Correspondence: [email protected]
Figure 1. Three dimensional ultrasound scan demonstrating an expelled ESSURE insert in the uterine cavity at 3 months (left), despite an uncomplicated insertion during the procedure (right).ESSURE hysteroscopic
sterilisationLaparoscopic Filshie clip
sterilisation p
n 10 25
Maternal age, yr 38.2 ±3.3 38.4 ± 4.1 0.9090
BMI, kg m-2 27.3 ±5.9 27.0 ±5.5 0.9031
Parity 3 (1-5) 3 (1-6) 0.6372
Discussed LARCs 10 [100%] 19 [ 76%]
Discussed LFCS 10 [100%] 25 [100%]
Discussed EHS 10 [100%] 5 [ 20%]
Discussed vasectomy 10 [100%] 17 [ 68%]