Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

UCSF

UC San Francisco Previously Published Works bannerUCSF

Comparative effectiveness of hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilization for women: a retrospective cohort study

Published Web Location

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028222001522?via%3Dihub
No data is associated with this publication.
Abstract

Objective

To compare real-world effectiveness of hysteroscopic to laparoscopic sterilization.

Design

Retrospective cohort of Medicaid claims for hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization procedures performed in California, 2008-2014. After excluding postpartum procedures, we applied log-linear (Poisson) event-history regression models for clustered person-period data, weighted for propensity to receive either sterilization procedures, and adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables to examine the poststerilization pregnancy rates.

Setting

Clinics, hospitals.

Patient(s)

Women aged 18-50 years with Medicaid claims between January 1, 2008, and August 31, 2014.

Intervention(s)

Hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization procedure.

Main outcome measure(s)

Poststerilization pregnancy measured by pregnancy-related claims.

Result(s)

Among women with hysteroscopic (n = 5,906) or laparoscopic (n = 23,965) sterilization, poststerilization pregnancy claims were identified for 4.74% of women after hysteroscopic sterilization and 5.57% after laparoscopic sterilization. The pregnancy rates decreased over time after either procedure. Twelve months after the procedure, the crude incidence of pregnancy claims was higher for hysteroscopic sterilization than for laparoscopic sterilization (3.26 vs. 2.61 per 100 woman-years), but the propensity-weighted adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.26). Between 13 and 24 months after the procedure, there were fewer pregnancies for women after hysteroscopic sterilizations than for those after laparoscopic sterilizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.88]), with no statistically significant differences in later years. The cumulative pregnancy rates 5 years after sterilization were lower with hysteroscopic sterilization than with laparoscopic sterilization (6.26 vs. 7.22 per 100 woman-years; propensity-weighted, adjusted risk ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62-0.90]). The poststerilization pregnancy rates varied by age and race/ethnicity.

Conclusion(s)

The pregnancy rates after female sterilization are higher than expected, whether performed hysteroscopically or laparoscopically. These findings are reassuring that the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization was not inferior to laparoscopic sterilization.

Clinical trial registration number

NCT03438682.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Item not freely available? Link broken?
Report a problem accessing this item