Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction · 2023
Laparoscopic removal of Essure device techniques, perioperative findings and evaluation of patient's satisfaction: A case series.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Antoun Lina, Smith Paul, Buduru Indira, Clark T Justin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perioperative outcomes and symptom resolution in women undergoing Essure removal.
METHODS: Single centre cohort study at a large University Teaching Hospital in the UK. Symptoms and Quality of life (QoL) were assessed using a standardised questionnaire administered at 6-months and up to 10-years following removal of Essure® devices.
RESULTS: 61 women underwent surgical removal of Essure® devices representing 61/1087 (5.6%) of all women undergoing this hysteroscopic form of sterilization. Patients who had Essure® removal were more likely to have a previous caesarean section [38% vs 18%; OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.6; P <0.001]. The main indication for removal was pelvic pain (49/61, 80%). Removal was achieved by laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy/cornuectomy (44/61,71%) or hysterectomy (17/61, 28%). At surgery, perforated device was seen in 4/61 (7%) cases. 26/61 (43%) of patients had concomitant pelvic pathology; 12/26 (46%) had fibrous adhesions, 8/26 (31%) endometriosis, 4/26 (15%) adenomyosis, and 2/26 (8%) had endometriosis and adenomyosis. 10 patients underwent further procedure following removal for ongoing symptoms. 55/61 women (90%) responded to the post removal symptom questionnaire. Most respondents to the quality of life survey 42/55 (76%) reported total or some improvement. 42/53 (79%) had total or some improvement in pelvic pain, 9/13 (69%) in mental health and 10/12 (83%) in bleeding.
CONCLUSION: Surgical removal of Essure® devices appears to improve symptoms thought to be attributable to the presence of these uterine implants in most women. However, patients should be counselled that one in five women may experience persistent or even worsening symptoms.
METHODS: Single centre cohort study at a large University Teaching Hospital in the UK. Symptoms and Quality of life (QoL) were assessed using a standardised questionnaire administered at 6-months and up to 10-years following removal of Essure® devices.
RESULTS: 61 women underwent surgical removal of Essure® devices representing 61/1087 (5.6%) of all women undergoing this hysteroscopic form of sterilization. Patients who had Essure® removal were more likely to have a previous caesarean section [38% vs 18%; OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.6; P <0.001]. The main indication for removal was pelvic pain (49/61, 80%). Removal was achieved by laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy/cornuectomy (44/61,71%) or hysterectomy (17/61, 28%). At surgery, perforated device was seen in 4/61 (7%) cases. 26/61 (43%) of patients had concomitant pelvic pathology; 12/26 (46%) had fibrous adhesions, 8/26 (31%) endometriosis, 4/26 (15%) adenomyosis, and 2/26 (8%) had endometriosis and adenomyosis. 10 patients underwent further procedure following removal for ongoing symptoms. 55/61 women (90%) responded to the post removal symptom questionnaire. Most respondents to the quality of life survey 42/55 (76%) reported total or some improvement. 42/53 (79%) had total or some improvement in pelvic pain, 9/13 (69%) in mental health and 10/12 (83%) in bleeding.
CONCLUSION: Surgical removal of Essure® devices appears to improve symptoms thought to be attributable to the presence of these uterine implants in most women. However, patients should be counselled that one in five women may experience persistent or even worsening symptoms.