Objective To compare patient satisfaction, discomfort, procedure time, success rate and adverse events of hysteroscopic (ESSURE, Conceptus Inc, San Carlos, USA) versus laparoscopic sterilisation. Design Cohort controlled comparative study.Setting The day surgery and outpatient unit of three large UK hospitals.Population Eighty-nine women requesting sterilisation were enrolled into the study.Methods A 2:1 ratio of ESSURE placement to laparoscopic sterilisation was undertaken. Laparoscopic sterilisation was carried out under general anaesthesia in the day surgery unit whereas all ESSURE procedures were carried out in a dedicated outpatient facility. All patients completed a self-assessment diary on days 7 and 90 post-operatively. Patient satisfaction, tolerance and discomfort were measured using an ordinal Likert style scale. Data were analysed using the m 2 test for statistical significance. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure is patient satisfaction with ESSURE versus laparoscopic sterilisation. This included satisfaction with the decision to proceed with the relevant sterilisation method, recovery from the procedure and overall satisfaction following either ESSURE or laparoscopic sterilisation. Secondary outcome measures include successful completion of procedure, procedure time, tolerance, patient discomfort and post-operative adverse events. Results All women who underwent laparoscopic sterilisation had the procedure successfully completed whereas the overall bilateral device placement rate for ESSURE was 81%. Patient satisfaction with their decision to undergo either ESSURE or laparoscopic sterilisation was high with 94% of the ESSURE group being 'very' or 'somewhat' satisfied at 90 days post-procedure versus 80% in the laparoscopic sterilisation group. At 90 days post-procedure 100% of women in the ESSURE group were 'very satisfied' with their speed of recovery versus 80% in the laparoscopic sterilisation group. The procedure time (defined from the time of insertion of the hysteroscope or laparoscope to its removal) took significantly longer for ESSURE than laparoscopic sterilisation (mean ¼ 13.2 vs 9.7 minutes, P ¼ 0.045). However, the time required for insertion of a Verres needle and insufflation of the abdominal cavity is a necessary part of the laparoscopic sterilisation and had it been included would bring the procedures times more in line with each other. The mean time spent in hospital was significantly shorter for the ESSURE group than the laparoscopic group (188.7 vs 396.1 minutes, P < 0.005). Eighty-two percent of women in the ESSURE group described their tolerance of the procedure between 'good and excellent' compared with only 41% of the laparoscopic sterilisation group (P ¼ 0.0002). Only 31% of the ESSURE group reported moderate or severe pain following the procedure compared with 63% of the laparoscopic sterilisation group (P ¼ 0.08). Only 11% of patients had problems immediately post-operatively in the ESSURE group compared with 27% in the laparoscopy group. Finally, in the mor...

Laparoscopy is the most common mode of surgery for female tubal sterilisation. Hysteroscopic sterilisation is a new method which can be performed in the outpatient setting under local anaesthetic. We carried out a prospective cohort trial to determine whether women would actually favour hysteroscopic sterilisation over laparoscopic sterilisation. Data analysis in a cohort of 96 women showed that 77% would prefer laparoscopic sterilisation over the hysteroscopic procedure (23%), despite the advantages of an outpatient setting. Age, obstetric history, employment and marital status, access to transport and previous anaesthetic did not significantly influence the choice made.

No abstract

No abstract