Desired Sterilization Procedure at the Time of Cesarean Delivery According to Insurance Status.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether women with Medicaid are less likely than their privately insured counterparts to receive a desired sterilization procedure at the time of cesarean delivery. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a single-center retrospective cohort examining 8,654 postpartum women from 2012 to 2014, of whom 2,205 (25.5%) underwent cesarean delivery. Insurance was analyzed as Medicaid compared with private insurance. The primary outcome was sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery. Reason for sterilization noncompletion and Medicaid sterilization consent form validity were recorded. Secondary outcomes included postpartum visit attendance, outpatient postpartum sterilization, and subsequent pregnancy within 365 days of delivery. RESULTS: Of the 481 women included in this analysis, 78 of 86 (90.7%) women with private insurance and 306 of 395 (77.4%) women with Medicaid desiring sterilization obtained sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery (relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.94). After multivariable logistic regression, gestational age at delivery (1.02 [1.00-1.03]), adequacy of prenatal care (1.30 [1.18-1.43]), and marital status (1.09 [1.01-1.19]) were associated with achievement of sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery. Sixty-four (66.0%) women who desired but did not receive sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery did not have valid, signed Medicaid sterilization forms, and 10 (10.3%) sterilizations were not able to be completed at the time of surgery owing to adhesions. Sterilization during cesarean delivery was not associated with less frequent postpartum visit attendance for either the Medicaid or privately insured population. Rates of outpatient postpartum sterilization were similar among those with Medicaid compared with private insurance. Among patients who did not receive sterilization at the time of delivery, 15 patients (each with Medicaid) had a subsequent pregnancy within the study period. CONCLUSION: Women with Medicaid insurance received sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery less frequently than privately insured counterparts, most commonly due to the absence of a valid Medicaid sterilization consent form as well as adhesive disease. The constraints surrounding the Medicaid form serve as a significant barrier to achieving desired sterilization.

The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy versus standard tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery for ovarian cancer risk reduction.

OBJECTIVES: Opportunistic salpingectomy is a cost-effective strategy recommended for ovarian cancer (OvCa) risk reduction at the time of gynecologic surgery in women who have completed childbearing. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy compared to standard tubal ligation (TL) during cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis using decision modeling to compare opportunistic salpingectomy to TL at the time of cesarean using probabilities of procedure completion derived from a trial. Probability and cost inputs were derived from local data and the literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2017 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed for all variables. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined the proportion of simulations in which each strategy would be cost-effective. RESULTS: Opportunistic salpingectomy was cost-effective compared to TL with an ICER of $26,616 per QALY. In 10,000 women desiring sterilization with cesarean, opportunistic salpingectomy would result in 17 fewer OvCa diagnoses, 13 fewer OvCa deaths, and 25 fewer unintended pregnancies compared to TL - with an associated cost increase of $4.7 million. The model was sensitive only to OvCa risk reduction from salpingectomy and TL. Opportunistic salpingectomy was not cost-effective if its cost was >$3163.74 more than TL, if the risk-reduction of salpingectomy was <41%, or if the risk-reduction of TL was >46%. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis opportunistic salpingectomy was cost effective in 75% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: In women undergoing cesarean with sterilization, opportunistic salpingectomy is likely cost-effective and may be cost-saving in comparison to TL for OvCa risk reduction.

Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy vs tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery.

BACKGROUND: Removal of the fallopian tubes at the time of hysterectomy or interval sterilization has become routine practice to prevent ovarian cancer. While emerging as a strategy, uptake of this procedure at the time of cesarean delivery for pregnant women seeking permanent sterilization has not been widely adopted due to perceptions of increased morbidity and operative difficulty with a lack of available data in this setting. OBJECTIVE: We sought to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing strategies for long-term sterilization and ovarian cancer risk reduction at the time of cesarean delivery, including bilateral tubal ligation, opportunistic salpingectomy, and long-acting reversible contraception. STUDY DESIGN: A decision-analytic and cost-effectiveness model was constructed for pregnant women undergoing cesarean delivery who desired permanent sterilization in the US population, comparing 3 strategies: (1) bilateral tubal ligation, (2) bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy, and (3) postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. This theoretic cohort consisted of 110,000 pregnant women desiring permanent sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery and ovarian cancer prevention at an average of 35 years who were monitored for an additional 40 years based on an average US female life expectancy of 75 years. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years. Secondary outcomes included: the number of ovarian cancer cases and deaths, procedure-related complications, and unintended and ectopic pregnancies. The 1-, 2-, and 3-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000. RESULTS: Both bilateral tubal ligation and bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy with cesarean delivery have favorable cost-effectiveness ratios. In the base case analysis, salpingectomy was more cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,189 per quality-adjusted life year compared to tubal ligation. Long-acting reversible contraception after cesarean was not cost-effective (ie, dominated). Although salpingectomy and tubal ligation were both cost-effective over a wide range of cost and risk estimates, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis was highly sensitive to the uncertainty around the estimates of salpingectomy cancer risk reduction, risk of perioperative complications, and cost. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated that tubal ligation had a 49% chance of being the preferred strategy over salpingectomy. If the true salpingectomy risk of perioperative complications is >2% higher than tubal ligation or if the cancer risk reduction of salpingectomy is <52%, then tubal ligation is the preferred, more cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSION: Bilateral tubal ligation and bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy with cesarean delivery are both cost-effective strategies for permanent sterilization and ovarian cancer risk reduction. Although salpingectomy and tubal ligation are both reasonable strategies for cesarean patients seeking permanent sterilization and cancer risk reduction, threshold analyses indicate that the risks and benefits of salpingectomy with cesarean delivery need to be better defined before a preferred strategy can be determined.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Salpingectomies for Family Planning in the Prevention of Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynaecologic cancer. Disease prevention may be the only method to reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology advised that salpingectomies may be an appropriate and feasible strategy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. This study conducted an economic evaluation from a societal perspective of bilateral salpingectomies versus conventional sterilization techniques in the prevention of ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a micro-cost analysis comparing laparoscopic tubal coagulation, tubal clips and bilateral salpingectomies at the Michael Garron Hospital, formerly the Toronto East General Hospital, from 2015 to 2016. A Markov model was used in the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses on these surgical procedures in ovarian cancer prevention. Costs were derived for the number ovarian cancer cases observed per sterilization method, cancer treatment, and associated procedural costs over each cancer patient's lifetime. The number of bilateral salpingectomies required to prevent an additional ovarian cancer case with the recommended treatment was also estimated. RESULTS: Bilateral salpingectomies performed at the Michael Garron Hospital generated savings of $7823 per life-year gained (95% CI $3248-$10 190; incremental cost [ΔC] -$907, incremental effect [ΔE] 0.11 life-years gained) compared with tubal clips and savings of $6315 per life-year gained (95% CI -$6360 to $9342; ΔC -$755, ΔE 0.11 life-years gained) compared with tubal coagulation. Most importantly, for every 150 bilateral salpingectomies performed, one case of ovarian cancer may be prevented. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy is the dominant, cost-effective surgical strategy when compared to tubal clips and tubal coagulation to prevent ovarian cancer. Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomies reduce costs and enhance quality-adjusted life-years relative to the two alternative treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention.

OBJECTIVES: Data suggesting a link between the fallopian tube and ovarian cancer have led to an increase in rates of salpingectomy at the time of pelvic surgery, a practice known as opportunistic salpingectomy (OS). However, the potential benefits, risks and costs for this new practice are not well established. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of laparoscopic permanent contraception or hysterectomy for benign indications. METHODS: We created two models to compare the cost-effectiveness of salpingectomy versus usual care. The hypothetical study population is 50,000 women aged 45 undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy with ovarian preservation for benign indications, and 300,000 women aged 35 undergoing laparoscopic permanent contraception. SEER data were used for probabilities of ovarian cancer cases and deaths. The ovarian cancer risk reduction, complication rates, utilities and associated costs were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation were performed, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to determine the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In the laparoscopic hysterectomy cohort, OS is cost saving and would yield $23.9 million in health care dollars saved. In the laparoscopic permanent contraception cohort, OS is cost-effective with an ICER of $31,432/QALY compared to tubal ligation, and remains cost-effective as long as it reduces ovarian cancer risk by 54%. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated cost-effectiveness with hysterectomy and permanent contraception in 62.3% and 55% of trials, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic salpingectomy for low-risk women undergoing pelvic surgery may be a cost-effective strategy for decreasing ovarian cancer risk at time of hysterectomy or permanent contraception. In our model, salpingectomy was cost-effective with both procedures, but the advantage greater at time of hysterectomy.

Comparison of Healthcare Costs Among Commercially Insured Women in the United States Who Underwent Hysteroscopic Sterilization Versus Laparoscopic Bilateral Tubal Ligation Sterilization.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated healthcare costs of index procedures and during a 6-month follow-up of women who had hysteroscopic sterilization (HS) versus laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation (LBTL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women (18-49 years) with claims for HS and LBTL procedures were identified from the MarketScan commercial claims database (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2012) and placed into separate cohorts. Demographics, characteristics, index procedure costs, and 6-month total healthcare costs and sterilization procedure-related costs were compared. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine the impact of HS versus LBTL on costs. RESULTS: Among the study population, 12,031 had HS (mean age: 37.0 years) and 7286 had LBTL (mean age: 35.8 years). The majority (80.9%) who had HS underwent the procedure in a physician's office setting. Fewer women who had HS versus LBTL received the procedure in an inpatient setting (0.5% vs. 2.1%), an ambulatory surgical center setting (5.0% vs. 23.8%), or a hospital outpatient setting (13.4% vs. 71.9%). Mean total cost for the index sterilization procedure was lower for HS than for LBTL ($3964 vs. $5163, p < 0.0001). During the 6-month follow-up, total medical and prescription costs for all causes ($7093 vs. $7568, p < 0.0001) and sterilization procedure-related costs ($4971 vs. $5407, p < 0.0001) were lower for women who had HS versus LBTL. Multivariable regression results confirmed that costs were lower for women who had HS versus LBTL. CONCLUSIONS: Among commercially insured women in the United States, HS versus LBTL is associated with lower average costs for the index procedure and lower total healthcare and procedure-related costs during 6 months after the sterilization procedure.

Permanent Contraception for Women.

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.

Cost and efficacy comparison of in vitro fertilization and tubal anastomosis for women after tubal ligation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cost and efficacy of tubal anastomosis to in vitro fertilization (IVF) in women who desired fertility after a tubal ligation. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Not applicable. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cost per ongoing pregnancy. RESULT(S): Cost per ongoing pregnancy for women after tubal anastomosis ranged from $16,446 to $223,482 (2014 USD), whereas IVF ranged from $32,902 to $111,679 (2014 USD). Across maternal age groups <35 and 35-40, years tubal anastomosis was more cost effective than IVF for ongoing pregnancy. Sensitivity analyses validated these findings across a wide range of ongoing pregnancy probabilities as well as costs per procedure. CONCLUSION(S): Tubal anastomosis was the most cost-effective approach for most women less than 41 years of age, whereas IVF was the most cost-effective approach for women aged ≥41 years who desired fertility after tubal ligation. A model was created that can be modified based on cost and success rates in individual clinics for improved patient counseling.

Ovarian cancer risk reduction through opportunistic salpingectomy / 부인종양

No abstract available.

Bringing men to the table: sterilization can be for him or for her.

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.

Tubal ligation in Catholic hospitals: a qualitative study of ob-gyns' experiences.

OBJECTIVE: Tubal sterilization remains one of the most commonly requested contraceptive methods in the United States. Catholic hospital policy prohibits all sterilizations, but this ban is not uniformly enforced. We conducted this study to assess obstetrician-gynecologists' beliefs and experiences with tubal ligation in Catholic hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: We interviewed 31 obstetrician-gynecologists geographically dispersed throughout the US who responded to a national survey and agreed to be contacted for a follow-up interview or who were referred by colleagues from the survey sample. Twenty-seven had experienced working in a Catholic hospital. Interviews were open ended and guided by a semistructured instrument. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Obstetrician-gynecologists disagreed with strict prohibition of sterilizations, especially when denying a tubal ligation placed the patient at increased medical risk. Cesarean delivery in Catholic hospitals raised frustration for obstetrician-gynecologists when the hospital prohibited a simultaneous tubal ligation and, thus, sent the patient for an unnecessary subsequent surgery. Obstetrician-gynecologists described some hospitals allowing tubal ligations in limited circumstances, but these workarounds were vulnerable to changes in enforcement. Some obstetrician-gynecologists reported that Catholic policy posed greater barriers for low-income patients and those with insurance restrictions. CONCLUSION: Obstetrician-gynecologists working in Catholic hospitals in this study did not share the Church's beliefs on sterilization. Research to understand patients' experiences and knowledge of their sterilization options is warranted in order to promote women's autonomy and minimize risk of harm. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Tubal sterilization, even when medically indicated or in conjunction with cesarean delivery, is severely restricted for women delivering in Catholic hospitals. For women whose only access to hospital care is at a Catholic institution, religious policies can prevent them from receiving a desired sterilization and place them at risk for future undesired pregnancy.

Prohibiting consent: what are the costs of denying permanent contraception concurrent with abortion care?

OBJECTIVE: Oregon and federal laws prohibit giving informed consent for permanent contraception when presenting for an abortion. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the number of unintended pregnancies associated with this barrier to obtaining concurrent tubal occlusion and abortion, compared with the current policy, which limits women to obtaining interval tubal occlusion after abortion. The secondary objectives were to compare the financial costs, quality-adjusted life years, and the cost-effectiveness of these policies. STUDY DESIGN: We designed a decision-analytic model examining a theoretical population of women who requested tubal occlusion at time of abortion. Model inputs came from the literature. We examined the primary and secondary outcomes stratified by maternal age (>30 and <30 years). A Markov model incorporated the possibility of multiple pregnancies. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all variables and a Monte Carlo simulation was conducted. RESULTS: For every 1000 women age <30 years in Oregon who did not receive requested tubal occlusion at the time of abortion, over 5 years there would be 1274 additional unintended pregnancies and an additional $4,152,373 in direct medical costs. Allowing women to receive tubal occlusion at time of abortion was the dominant strategy. It resulted in both lower costs and greater quality-adjusted life years compared to allowing only interval tubal occlusion after abortion. CONCLUSION: Prohibiting tubal occlusion at time of abortion resulted in an increased incidence of unintended pregnancy and increased public costs.

[Cost effects of laparoscopic and hysteroscopic female sterilization]. / Naisten laparoskooppisen ja hysteroskooppisen sterilisaation kustannusvaikutukset.

INTRODUCTION: The aim was to elucidate the costs and clinical results of sterilization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on sterilizations conducted at the Hyvinkää hospital in 2006 to 2007 by tubal ligation with clips and by microimplants. RESULTS: Total costs obtained for microimplant sterilization per patient were 1,146 Euros and for clip sterilization 1,712 Euros. Postoperative pain was significantly less in the microimplant group, and adverse effects associated with the procedure were more common in the clip sterilization group. CONCLUSIONS: Microimplant sterilization performed on an outpatient basis is more cost-effective than laparoscopic clip sterilization.

State-mandated insurance coverage is associated with the approach to hydrosalpinges before IVF.

The aim of this study was to determine whether practice in states with infertility insurance mandates is associated with physician-reported practice patterns regarding hydrosalpinx management in assisted reproduction clinics. A cross-sectional, internet-based survey of 442 members of Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility or Society of Reproductive Surgeons was performed. Physicians practising in states without infertility insurance mandates were more likely to report performing diagnostic surgery after an inconclusive hysterosalpingogram than physicians practising in states with mandates (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.3, P < 0.01). Additionally, respondents in states without mandates were more likely to report that, due to lack of infertility insurance coverage, they did not perform salpingectomy (SPX) or proximal tubal occlusion (PTO) before assisted reproduction treatment (RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.8, P = 0.01). Finally, respondents in states without mandates were less likely to report that the presence of assisted reproduction treatment coverage determined the urgency with which they pursued SPX or PTO before treatment (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0, NS). These results persisted after controlling for physician years in practice, age and clinic volume. In conclusion, self-reported physician practice interventions for hydrosalpinges before assisted reproduction treatment may be associated with state-mandated infertility insurance. Fallopian tube dysfunction is a known cause of infertility and severe dysfunction is manifested by dilation and occlusion, known as hydrosalpinx. Outcomes with assisted reproductive techniques (ART) are lower when hydrosalpinges are present and while there are several theories for this, reproductive specialist recommend "neutralizing" the tube either by occlusion or removal in order to enhance pregnancy rates. In the United States, coverage for infertility services is not uniform with only 15 states having some legislation requiring infertility benefits. Some states where ART is covered liberally, physicians might have different practice patterns related to the neutralization of hydrosalpinges compared to those who are in non -mandated states. We utilized a survey of over 400 providers in the United States to examine their practice patterns as it relates to hydrosalpinges based on which state they practice in and whether or not that state has mandated coverage of not.

Adding injury to injury: ethical implications of the Medicaid sterilization consent regulations.

The need for contraceptive and family planning services is often unmet, especially among lower-income women. However, the history of the provision of these services is fraught with coercion and mistrust: in 1979, in response to forced sterilization practices among doctors working with poor and minority populations, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare imposed regulations on the informed consent process for Medicaid recipients requesting sterilization. The government mandated, among other requirements, a 30-day waiting period between consent and surgery and proscribed laboring women from providing consent. Initially intended to prevent the exploitation of poor women, these rules have instead become a barrier to many women receiving strongly desired, effective, permanent contraception. More critically, the regulations are ethically flawed: by preventing women from accessing needed family planning services, the Medicaid consent rules violate the standards of beneficence and nonmaleficence; by treating publically insured women differently from privately insured women, they fail the justice standard; and by placing constraints on women's free choice of contraceptive methods, they run afoul of the autonomy standard. The current federal sterilization consent regulations warrant revising. The new rules must simultaneously reduce barriers to tubal ligation while safeguarding the rights of women who have historically suffered mistreatment at the hands of the medical profession. These goals could best be obtained through a combined approach of improved clinician ethics education and a new standardized sterilization consent policy, which applies to all women and which abolishes the 30-day waiting period and the prohibition on obtaining consent in labor.

Reconsidering racial/ethnic differences in sterilization in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Cross-sectional studies have found that low-income and racial/ethnic minority women are more likely to use female sterilization and less likely to rely on a partner's vasectomy than women with higher incomes and whites. However, studies of pregnant and postpartum women report that racial/ethnic minorities, particularly low-income minority women, face greater barriers in obtaining a sterilization than do whites and those with higher incomes. In this paper, we address this apparent contradiction by examining the likelihood a woman gets a sterilization following each delivery, which removes from the comparison any difference in the number of births she has experienced. STUDY DESIGN: Using the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth, we fit multivariable-adjusted logistic and Cox regression models to estimate odds ratios and hazard ratios for getting a postpartum or interval sterilization, respectively, according to race/ethnicity and insurance status. RESULTS: Women's chances of obtaining a sterilization varied by both race/ethnicity and insurance. Among women with Medicaid, whites were more likely to use female sterilization than African Americans and Latinas. Privately insured whites were more likely to rely on vasectomy than African Americans and Latinas, but among women with Medicaid-paid deliveries reliance on vasectomy was low for all racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Low-income racial/ethnic minority women are less likely to undergo sterilization following delivery compared to low-income whites and privately insured women of similar parities. This could result from unique barriers to obtaining permanent contraception and could expose women to the risk of future unintended pregnancies. IMPLICATIONS: Low-income minorities are less likely to undergo sterilization than low-income whites and privately insured minorities, which may result from barriers to obtaining permanent contraception, and exposes women to unintended pregnancies.

Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization: a health economic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopic sterilization is a minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopic tubal ligation for women who want permanent contraception. In contrast to the laparoscopic technique, a hysteroscope is used to pass permanent microinserts through the cervix and place them in the fallopian tubes. This procedure does not require local or general anesthesia and can be performed in an office setting. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis was to determine, based on published literature, the cost-effectiveness of hysteroscopic tubal sterilization (HS) compared with laparoscopic tubal ligation (LS) for permanent female sterilization. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between January 1, 2008, and December 11, 2012. REVIEW METHODS: Potentially relevant studies were identified based on the title and abstract. Cost-utility analyses (studies that report outcomes in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life-years) were prioritized for inclusion. When not available, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-consequence analyses were considered. Costing studies were considered in the absence of all other analyses. RESULTS: A total of 33 abstracts were identified. Three cost analyses were included. A retrospective chart review from Canada found that HS was $111 less costly than LS; a prospective activity-based cost management study from Italy reported that it was €337 less costly than LS; and the results of an American decision model showed that HS was $1,178 less costly than LS. LIMITATIONS: All studies had limited applicability to the Ontario health care system due to differences in setting, resource use, and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Three cost analyses found that, although the HS procedure was more expensive due to the cost of the microinserts, HS was less costly than LS overall due to the shorter recovery time required. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Hysteroscopic sterilization is a minimally invasive alternative to conventional tubal ligation for women who want a permanent method of contraception. Both approaches involve closing off the fallopian tubes, preventing the egg from moving down the tube and the sperm from reaching the egg. Tubal ligation is a surgical procedure to tie or seal the fallopian tubes, and it usually requires general anesthesia. In contrast, hysteroscopic tubal sterilization can be performed in 10 minutes in an office setting without general or even local anesthesia. A tiny device called a microinsert is inserted into each fallopian tube through the vagina, cervix, and uterus without surgery. An instrument called a hysteroscope allows the doctor to see inside the body for the procedure. Once the microinserts are in place, scar tissue forms around them and blocks the fallopian tubes. Health Quality Ontario commissioned a systematic review of published economic literature to determine whether hysteroscopic sterilization is cost-effective compared to tubal ligation. This review did not find any studies that reported results in terms of both costs and effectiveness or costs and quality-adjusted life-years. We did find 3 costing studies and included them in our review. All of these studies found that when hysteroscopic sterilization was performed as an outpatient procedure, it was less expensive than tubal ligation due to a shorter recovery time. However, none of the studies apply directly to Ontario because of differences in our health care system compared to those in the studies.

Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization: an evidence-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization is a minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopic tubal ligation for women who want permanent contraception. The procedures involves non-surgical placement of permanent microinserts into both fallopian tubes. Patients must use alternative contraception for at least 3 months postprocedure until tubal occlusion is confirmed. Compared to tubal ligation, potential advantages of the hysteroscopic procedure are that it can be performed in 10 minutes in an office setting without the use of general or even local anesthesia. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to determine the effectiveness and safety of hysteroscopic tubal sterilization compared with tubal ligation for permanent female sterilization. DATA SOURCES: A standard systematic literature search was conducted for studies published from January 1, 2008, until December 11, 2012. REVIEW METHODS: Observational studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses with 1 month or more of follow-up were examined. Outcomes included failure/pregnancy rates, adverse events, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: No RCTs were identified. Two systematic reviews covered 22 observational studies of hysteroscopic sterilization. Only 1 (N = 93) of these 22 studies compared hysteroscopic sterilization to laparoscopic tubal ligation. Two other noncomparative case series not included in the systematic reviews were also identified. In the absence of comparative studies, data on tubal ligation were derived for this analysis from the CREST study, a large, multicentre, prospective, noncomparative observational study in the United States (GRADE low). Overall, hysteroscopic sterilization is associated with lower pregnancy rates and lower complication rates compared to tubal ligation. No deaths have been reported for hysteroscopic sterilization. LIMITATIONS: A lack of long-term follow-up for hysteroscopic sterilization and a paucity of studies that directly compare the two procedures limit this assessment. In addition, optimal placement of the microinsert at the time of hysteroscopy varied among studies. CONCLUSIONS: Hysteroscopic sterilization is associated with: lower pregnancy rates compared to tubal ligation (GRADE very low); lower complication rates compared to tubal ligation (GRADE very low); no significant improvement in patient satisfaction compared to tubal ligation (GRADE very low). PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization is a minimally invasive alternative to conventional tubal ligation for women who want a permanent method of contraception. Both approaches involve closing off the fallopian tubes, preventing the egg from moving down the tube and the sperm from reaching the egg. Tubal ligation is a surgical procedure to tie or seal the fallopian tubes, and it usually requires general anesthesia. In contrast, hysteroscopic tubal sterilization can be performed in 10 minutes in an office setting without general or even local anesthesia. A tiny device called a microinsert is inserted into each fallopian tube through the vagina, cervix, and uterus without surgery. An instrument called a hysteroscope allows the doctor to see inside the body for the procedure. Once the microinserts are in place, scar tissue forms around them and blocks the fallopian tubes. Health Quality Ontario conducted a review of the effectiveness and safety of hysteroscopic tubal sterilization compared to tubal ligation. This review indicates that hysteroscopic tubal sterilization is associated with: lower pregnancy rates compared to tubal ligation; lower complication rates compared to tubal ligation; no significant improvement in patient satisfaction compared to tubal ligation. However, we found a number of limitations to the studies available on hysteroscopic tubal sterilization. Among other concerns, most studies did not include long-term follow-up and only 1 study directly compared hysteroscopic tubal sterilization to tubal ligation.