Dataset Information

Association of Hysteroscopic vs Laparoscopic Sterilization With Procedural, Gynecological, and Medical Outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Safety of hysteroscopic sterilization has been recently questioned following reports of general symptoms such as allergy, tiredness, and depression in addition to associated gynecological results such as pelvic pain, perforation of fallopian tubes or uterus, and unwanted pregnancy.

Objective

To compare the risk of reported adverse events between hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilization.

Design, setting, and participants

French nationwide cohort study using the national hospital discharge database linked to the health insurance claims database. Women aged 30 to 54 years receiving a first hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization between 2010 and 2014 were included and were followed up through December 2015.

Exposures

Hysteroscopic sterilization vs laparoscopic sterilization.

Main outcomes and measures

Risks of procedural complications (surgical and medical) and of gynecological (sterilization failure that includes salpingectomy, second sterilization procedure, or pregnancy; pregnancy; reoperation) and medical outcomes (all types of allergy; autoimmune diseases; thyroid disorder; use of analgesics, antimigraines, antidepressants, benzodiazepines; outpatient visits; sickness absence; suicide attempts; death) that occurred within 1 and 3 years after sterilization were compared using inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox models.

Results

Of the 105 357 women included (95.5% of eligible participants; mean age, 41.3 years [SD, 3.7 years]), 71 303 (67.7% ) underwent hysteroscopic sterilization, and 34 054 (32.3%) underwent laparoscopic sterilization. During the hospitalization for sterilization, risk of surgical complications for hysteroscopic sterilization was lower: 0.13% for hysteroscopic sterilization vs 0.78% for laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted risk difference [RD], -0.64; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.60) and was lower for medical complications: 0.06% vs 0.11% (adjusted RD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). During the first year after sterilization, 4.83% of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization had a higher risk of sterilization failure than the 0.69% who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 7.11; 95% CI, 5.92 to 8.54; adjusted RD, 4.23 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 3.40 to 5.22). Additionally, 5.65% of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization required gynecological reoperation vs 1.76% of women who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted HR, 3.26; 95% CI, 2.90 to 3.67; adjusted RD, 4.63 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 3.38 to 4.75); these differences persisted after 3 years, although attenuated. Hysteroscopic sterilization was associated with a lower risk of pregnancy within the first year of the procedure but was not significantly associated with a difference in risk of pregnancy by the third year (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83-1.30; adjusted RD, 0.01 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.07). Risks of medical outcomes were not significantly increased with hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization.

Conclusions and relevance

Among women undergoing first sterilization, the use of hysteroscopic sterilization was significantly associated with higher risk of gynecological complications over 1 year and over 3 years than was laparoscopic sterilization. Risk of medical outcomes was not significantly increased over 1 year or over 3 years. These findings do not support increased medical risks associated with hysteroscopic sterilization.

SUBMITTER: Bouillon K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5833563 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization with the "Essure" device with laparoscopic sterilization in a large, all-inclusive, state cohort.DesignPopulation based cohort study.SettingsOutpatient interventional setting in New York State.ParticipantsWomen undergoing interval sterilization procedure, including hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure device and laparoscopic surgery, between 2005 and 2013.Main outcomes measuresSafety events within 30 days of procedures; unintended pregnancies and reoperations within one year of procedures. Mixed model accounting for hospital clustering was used to compare 30 day and 1 year outcomes, adjusting for patient characteristics and other confounders. Time to reoperation was evaluated using frailty model for time to event analysis.ResultsWe identified 8048 patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization and 44,278 undergoing laparoscopic sterilization between 2005 and 2013 in New York State. There was a significant increase in the use of hysteroscopic procedures during this period, while use of laparoscopic sterilization decreased. Patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization were older than those undergoing laparoscopic sterilization and were more likely to have a history of pelvic inflammatory disease (10.3% v 7.2%, P<0.01), major abdominal surgery (9.4% v 7.9%, P<0.01), and cesarean section (23.2% v 15.4%, P<0.01). At one year after surgery, hysteroscopic sterilization was not associated with a higher risk of unintended pregnancy (odds ratio 0.84 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.12)) but was associated with a substantially increased risk of reoperation (odds ratio 10.16 (7.47 to 13.81)) compared with laparoscopic sterilization.ConclusionsPatients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization have a similar risk of unintended pregnancy but a more than 10-fold higher risk of undergoing reoperation compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic sterilization. Benefits and risks of both procedures should be discussed with patients for informed decisions making.

Project description:ImportanceUse of robotic surgery has increased in urological practice over the last decade. However, the use, outcomes, and costs of robotic nephrectomy are unknown.ObjectivesTo examine the trend in use of robotic-assisted operations for radical nephrectomy in the United States and to compare the perioperative outcomes and costs with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used the Premier Healthcare database to evaluate outcomes of patients who had undergone robotic-assisted or laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal mass at 416 US hospitals between January 2003 and September 2015. Multivariable regression modeling was used to assess outcomes.ExposuresRobotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome of the study was the trend in use of robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. The secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, based on the Clavien classification system, and defined as any complication (Clavien grades 1-5) or major complications (Clavien grades 3-5, for which grade 5 results in death); resource use (operating time, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay); and direct hospital cost.ResultsAmong 23 753 patients included in the study (mean age, 61.4 years; men, 13 792 [58.1%]), 18 573 underwent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and 5180 underwent robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. Use of robotic-assisted surgery increased from 1.5% (39 of 2676 radical nephrectomy procedures in 2003) to 27.0% (862 of 3194 radical nephrectomy procedures) in 2015 (P for trend <.001). In the weighted-adjusted analysis, there were no significant differences between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in the incidence of any (Clavien grades 1-5) postoperative complications (adjusted rates, 22.2% vs 23.4%, difference, -1.2%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 3.0%) or major (Clavien grades 3-5) complications (adjusted rates, 3.5% vs 3.8%, difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 0.5%). The rate of prolonged operating time (>4 hours) for patients undergoing the robotic-assisted procedure was higher than for patients receiving the laparoscopic procedure in the adjusted analysis (46.3% vs 25.8%; risk difference, 20.5%; 95% CI, 14.2% to 26.8%). Robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy was associated with higher mean 90-day direct hospital costs ($19 530 vs $16 851; difference, $2678; 95% CI, $838 to $4519), mainly accounted for operating room ($7217 vs $5378; difference, $1839; 95% CI, $1050 to $2628) and supply costs ($4876 vs $3891; difference, $985; 95% CI, $473 to $1498).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for renal mass between 2003 and 2015, the use of robotic-assisted surgery increased substantially. The use of robotic-assistance was not associated with increased risk of any or major complications but was associated with prolonged operating time and higher hospital costs compared with laparoscopic surgery.

Project description:The symptomatic benefits of spinal augmentation (vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty) for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures are controversial. Recent population-based studies using medical billing claims have reported significant reductions in mortality with spinal augmentation compared with conservative therapy, but in nonrandomized settings such as these, there is the potential for selection bias to influence results.To compare major medical outcomes following treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures with spinal augmentation or conservative therapy. Additionally, we evaluate the role of selection bias using preprocedure outcomes and propensity score analysis.Retrospective cohort analysis of Medicare claims for the 2002-2006 period. We compared 30-day and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed vertebral fractures treated with spinal augmentation (n?=?10,541) or conservative therapy (control group, n?=?115,851). Outcomes were compared using traditional multivariate analyses adjusted for patient demographics and comorbid conditions. We also used propensity score matching to select 9017 pairs from the initial groups to compare the same outcomes.Spinal augmentation (vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty) or conservative therapy.Mortality, major complications, and health care utilization.Using traditional covariate adjustments, mortality was significantly lower in the augmented group than among controls (5.2% vs 6.7% at 1 year; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92). However, patients in the augmented group who had not yet undergone augmentation (preprocedure subgroup) had lower rates of medical complications 30 days post fracture than did controls (6.5% vs 9.5%; odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.78), suggesting that the augmented group was less medically ill. After propensity score matching to better account for selection bias, 1-year mortality was not significantly different between the groups. Furthermore, 1-year major medical complications were also similar between the groups, and the augmented group had higher rates of health care utilization, including hospital and intensive care unit admissions and discharges to skilled nursing facilities.After accounting for selection bias, spinal augmentation did not improve mortality or major medical outcomes and was associated with greater health care utilization than conservative therapy. Our results also highlight how analyses of claims-based data that do not adequately account for unrecognized confounding can arrive at misleading conclusions.

Project description:Female sterilization is the second most commonly used method of contraception in the United States. Female sterilization can now be performed through laparoscopic, abdominal, or hysteroscopic approaches. The hysteroscopic sterilization may be a safer option than sterilization through laparoscopy or laparotomy because it avoids invading the abdominal cavity and undergoing general anaesthesia. Hysteroscopic sterilization mainly includes chemical agents and mechanical devices. Common issues related to the toxicity of the chemical agents used have raised concerns regarding this kind of contraception. The difficulty of the transcervical insertion of such mechanical devices into the fallopian tubes has increased the high incidence of device displacement or dislodgment. At present, Essure® is the only commercially available hysteroscopic sterilization device being used clinically. The system is irreversible and is not effective immediately.Our new hysteroscopic sterility system consists of nickel-titanium (NiTi) shape memory alloy and a waterproof membrane. The NiTi alloy is covered with two coatings to avoid toxic Ni release and to prevent stimulation of epithelial tissue growth around the oviducts. Because of the shape memory effect of the NiTi alloy, the device works like an umbrella: it stays collapsed at low temperature before placement and opens by the force of shape memory activated by the body temperature after it is inserted hysteroscopically into the interstitial tubal lumen. The rim of the open device will incise into interstitial myometrium during the process of unfolding. Once the device is fixed, it blocks the tube completely. When the patient no longer wishes for sterilization, the device can be closed by perfusing liquid with low temperature into the uterine cavity, followed by prospective hysteroscopic removal. After the device removal, the fallopian tube will revert to its physiological functions.Currently, experimental and clinical studies are needed to attest the safety, efficiency and reversibility of the novel sterilization device.If our hypothesis is confirmed, appropriate and reversible contraceptive can be achieved with the device we have designed, which may have significant repercussions for numerous women worldwide.

Project description:BackgroundHysteroscopic resection is the first-choice treatment for symptomatic type 0 and 1 fibroids. Traditionally, this was performed under general anesthesia. Over the last decade, surgical procedures are increasingly being performed in an outpatient setting under procedural sedation and analgesia. However, studies evaluating safety and effectiveness of hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation are lacking. This study aims to investigate whether hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol is noninferior to hysteroscopic myomectomy under general anesthesia.Methods and findingsThis was a multicenter, randomized controlled noninferiority trial conducted in 14 university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2021. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, maximum number of 3 type 0 or 1 fibroids, maximum fibroid diameter 3.5 cm, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2, and having sufficient knowledge of the Dutch or English language. Women with clotting disorders or with severe anemia (Hb < 5.0 mmol/L) were excluded. Women were randomized using block randomization with variable block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, between hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with propofol or under general anesthesia (GA). Primary outcome was the percentage of complete resections, assessed on transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks postoperatively by a sonographer blinded for the treatment arm and surgical outcome. Secondary outcomes were the surgeon's judgment of completeness of procedure, menstrual blood loss, uterine fibroid related and general quality of life, pain, recovery, hospitalization, complications, and surgical reinterventions. Follow-up period was 1 year. The risk difference between both treatment arms was estimated, and a Farrington-Manning test was used to determine the p-value for noninferiority (noninferiority margin 7.5% of incomplete resections). Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle, including a per-protocol analysis for the primary outcome. A total of 209 women participated in the study and underwent hysteroscopic myomectomy with PSA (n = 106) or GA (n = 103). Mean age was 45.1 [SD 6.4] years in the PSA group versus 45.0 [7.7] years in the GA group. For 98/106 women in the PSA group and 89/103 women in the GA group, data were available for analysis of the primary outcome. Hysteroscopic resection was complete in 86/98 women (87.8%) in the PSA group and 79/89 women (88.8%) in the GA group (risk difference -1.01%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.36 to 8.34; noninferiority, P = 0.09). No serious anesthesiologic complications occurred, and conversion from PSA to GA was not required. During the follow-up period, 15 serious adverse events occurred (overnight admissions). All were unrelated to the intervention studied. Main limitations were the choice of primary outcome and the fact that our study proved to be underpowered.ConclusionsNoninferiority of PSA for completeness of resection was not shown, though there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes and quality of life. In this study, hysteroscopic myomectomy for type 0 and 1 fibroids with PSA compared to GA was safe and led to shorter hospitalization. These results can be used for counseling patients by gynecologists and anesthesiologists. Based on these findings, we suggest that hysteroscopic myomectomies can be performed under PSA in an outpatient setting.Trial registrationThe study was registered prospectively in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR 5357; registration date: 11 August 2015; Date of initial participant enrollment: 18 February 2016).