↓ Skip to main content

Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003034.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theresa A Lawrie, Regina Kulier, Juan Manuel Nardin

Abstract

This is an update of a review that was first published in 2002. Female sterilisation is the most popular contraceptive method worldwide. Several techniques exist for interrupting the patency of fallopian tubes, including cutting and tying the tubes, damaging the tube using electric current, applying clips or silicone rubber rings, and blocking the tubes with chemicals or tubal inserts. To compare the different tubal occlusion techniques in terms of major and minor morbidity, failure rates (pregnancies), technical failures and difficulties, and women's and surgeons' satisfaction. For the original review published in 2002 we searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). For this 2015 update, we searched POPLINE, LILACS, PubMed and CENTRAL on 23 July 2015. We used the related articles feature of PubMed and searched reference lists of newly identified trials. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different techniques for tubal sterilisation, irrespective of the route of fallopian tube access or the method of anaesthesia. For the original review, two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For this update, data extraction was performed by one author (TL) and checked by another (RK). We grouped trials according to the type of comparison evaluated. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) using fixed-effect methods, unless heterogeneity was high, in which case we used random-effects methods. We included 19 RCTs involving 13,209 women. Most studies concerned interval sterilisation; three RCTs involving 1632 women, concerned postpartum sterilisation. Comparisons included tubal rings versus clips (six RCTs, 4232 women); partial salpingectomy versus electrocoagulation (three RCTs, 2019 women); tubal rings versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 599 women); partial salpingectomy versus clips (four RCTs, 3627 women); clips versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 206 women); and Hulka versus Filshie clips (two RCTs, 2326 women). RCTs of clips versus electrocoagulation contributed no data to the review.One year after sterilisation, failure rates were low (< 5/1000) for all methods.There were no deaths reported with any method, and major morbidity related to the occlusion technique was rare.Minor morbidity was higher with the tubal ring than the clip (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.78; participants = 842; studies = 2; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence), as were technical failures (Peto OR 3.93, 95% CI 2.43 to 6.35; participants = 3476; studies = 3; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence).Major morbidity was significantly higher with the modified Pomeroy technique than electrocoagulation (Peto OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 7.25; participants = 1905; studies = 2; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), as was postoperative pain (Peto OR 3.85, 95% CI 2.91 to 5.10; participants = 1905; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).When tubal rings were compared with electrocoagulation, postoperative pain was reported significantly more frequently for tubal rings (OR 3.40, 95% CI 1.17 to 9.84; participants = 596; studies = 2; I² = 87%; low-quality evidence).When partial salpingectomy was compared with clips, there were no major morbidity events in either group (participants = 2198, studies = 1). The frequency of minor morbidity was low and not significantly different between groups (Peto OR 7.39, 95% CI 0.46 to 119.01; participants = 193; studies = 1, low-quality evidence). Although technical failure occurred more frequently with clips (Peto OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; participants = 2198; studies = 1; moderate-quality evidence); operative time was shorter with clips than partial salpingectomy (MD 4.26 minutes, 95% CI 3.65 to 4.86; participants = 2223; studies = 2; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence).We found little evidence concerning women's or surgeon's satisfaction. No RCTs compared tubal microinserts (hysteroscopic sterilisation) or chemical inserts (quinacrine) to other methods. Tubal sterilisation by partial salpingectomy, electrocoagulation, or using clips or rings, is a safe and effective method of contraception. Failure rates at 12 months post-sterilisation and major morbidity are rare outcomes with any of these techniques. Minor complications and technical failures appear to be more common with rings than clips. Electrocoagulation may be associated with less postoperative pain than the modified Pomeroy or tubal ring methods. Further research should include RCTs (for effectiveness) and controlled observational studies (for adverse effects) on sterilisation by minimally-invasive methods, i.e. tubal inserts and quinacrine.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,005,640
of 13,444,619 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,034
of 10,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,541
of 264,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,444,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.