Article

Tubal sterilization trends in the United States

School of Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
Fertility and sterility (Impact Factor: 4.3). 06/2010; 94(1):1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.029
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To review the rate, setting, and demographic characteristics of tubal sterilization and its current trend within contraceptive practice in the United States.
Review of U.S. health care statistics, NCHS publications, English-language literature searched using MEDLINE and PubMed, and bibliographies of key references.
Total annual cases of tubal sterilization have declined from 687,000 in 1995 to 643,000 in 2006, despite a 4% population growth. Interval sterilizations decreased by 12%. Postpartum sterilizations remained stable and follow 8%-9% of all live births. Tubal sterilizations remain more common in black and Hispanic women; women with lower income, lower education, and higher parity; and among women living in the South. From 1981 to 1995, inpatient interval sterilizations fully migrated to ambulatory surgery care.
After two decades of stable rates, there is a recent decline in sterilization. Improved access to a wide range of highly effective reversible contraceptives gives women flexibility when deciding how to manage their reproductive ability.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
75 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Female sterilization, one of the most effective forms of pregnancy prevention, can be performed remote from pregnancy (interval sterilization) or around the time of delivery. Modern methods for sterilization include tubal interruption, salpingectomy, and transcervical sterilization. Tubal interruption has been the primary method for interval sterilization for decades, developing as a means of rapid intra-abdominal laparoscopic surgery at a time when instrumentation and operating systems were less sophisticated than today. New evidence that the most common ovarian cancer, serous adenocarcinoma, frequently may start in the Fallopian tube, has increased research and clinical use of salpingectomy as a preferred method for sterilization. With studies showing that the surgical risks with tubal interruption and salpingectomy are likely equivalent, even when performed at cesarean delivery, the rationale seems to be in place to change our clinical practice. However, we should ask why this revelation has not occurred sooner, even though surgical techniques have advanced and salpingectomy, unlike tubal occlusion or hysteroscopic sterilization, does not leave patients at risk for future intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy. We should not have started thinking about salpingectomy for female sterilization only once a decrease in ovarian cancer risk became part of the equation. Providers' failure to offer this option means that women and their true desires were not part of the conversation. If we had included the patient in the discussion, perhaps the higher efficacy of salpingectomy would have been what women desired all along.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 09/2014; 124(3):596-599. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000422 · 4.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To assess the effectiveness of using local anesthesia during interval laparoscopic tubal ligation to control postoperative pain.DATA SOURCES:We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases and found additional articles from bibliographies of relevant studies.METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION:We included only randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials reporting postoperative pain after interval laparoscopic tubal ligation under general anesthesia (n=20). The trials compared the application of topical or injectable local anesthetic with placebo and used a visual analog scale (VAS) (scores 0-100) or the Modified McGill Pain Intensity Scale (subsequently converted to a VAS) to assess pain.TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS:Pain scores were evaluated at the following times after extubation: 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours, 8 hours, and 24 hours. The meta-analysis was based on random-effects methods for pooled data using RevMan. Postoperative pain decreased with the use of local anesthetic compared with placebo as follows (mean VAS decrease in millimeters, 95% confidence interval): 30 minutes 18.6 (11.7-25.5); 1 hour 16.6 (9.3-24.0); 2 hours 17.4 (9.6-25.2); 4 hours 12.5 (5.1-19.9); 8 hours 11.9 (6.7-17.1); and 24 hours 3.9 (-1.4 to 9.2). There was moderate heterogeneity in the data across studies (I-2 statistic ranging from 55% to 75%). The effect size was similar for the following subgroups: pain scores reported as means or medians and use of McGill compared with VAS pain scales. A stratified analysis of trials including ring tubal ligation compared with clip tubal ligation showed the use of local anesthetic decreased pain substantially for both. No eligible studies assessed tubal ligation with cautery.CONCLUSION:Use of local anesthetic during laparoscopic tubal ligation substantially reduces postoperative pain up to 8 hours after surgery.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 06/2014; 124(1). DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000342 · 4.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sterilization, male and female combined, is the most common use of contraception in the United States. Despite the lower risk, higher cost-efficacy, and high efficacy of vasectomy compared with female sterilization, more US women rely on female sterilization than male sterilization. Reasons for low use of vasectomy include lack of knowledge and misconceptions about the procedure, lack of access, provider bias, and patient preferences. This article will provide a basic overview of male and female sterilization, an exploration of vasectomy barriers, and ways obstetrician-gynecologists can increase vasectomy uptake including regular recommendation of vasectomy to patients in long-term committed relationships considering sterilization.
    Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 10/2014; 57(4). DOI:10.1097/GRF.0000000000000060 · 1.53 Impact Factor