Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2016; 34(03): 139-144
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1571434
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Permanent Contraception for Women

Eva Patil
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
,
Jeffrey T. Jensen
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
09 March 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMed
  • 3 Jensen JT. Permanent contraception: modern approaches justify a new name. Contraception 2014; 89 (6) 493-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Paulsen D. Female reproductive system. In: Histology & Cell Biology: Examination and Board Review. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2010. : Chapter 23
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rodriguez MI, Edelman AB, Kapp N. Postpartum sterilization with the titanium clip: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (1) 143-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Huggins GR, Sondheimer SJ. Complications of female sterilization: immediate and delayed. Fertil Steril 1984; 41 (3) 337-355
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Woodruff JD. The pathogenesis of ovarian neoplasia. Johns Hopkins Med J 1979; 144 (4) 117-120
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Creinin MD, Zite N. Female tubal sterilization: the time has come to routinely consider removal. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (3) 596-599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Backes FJ. Salpingectomy, why not?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (5) 385-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Committee opinion no. 620: Salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125 (1) 279-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Cleary TP, Tepper NK, Cwiak C , et al. Pregnancies after hysteroscopic sterilization: a systematic review. Contraception 2013; 87 (5) 539-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Thurkow AL. AltaSeal hysteroscopic sterilization: the new challenger to Essure?. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 18 (6, Suppl): S38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lippes J. Quinacrine sterilization (QS): time for reconsideration. Contraception 2015; 92 (2) 91-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Feied C. Sclerosing solutions. In: Fronek H, ed. The Fundamentals of Phlebology: Venous Disease for Clinicians. London, UK: RSM Press; 2007
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Patil E, Jensen JT. Update on permanent contraception options for women. [Review] Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015; 27 (6) 465-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Sharma DC. India's sterilisation scandal. Lancet 2014; 384 (9961) e68-e69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar