Female sterilisation: a cohort controlled comparative study of ESSURE versus laparoscopic sterilisation
Authors: Duffy Sean , Marsh Fiona , Rogerson Lynne , Hudson Heather , Cooper Kevin , Jack Stuart , Hunter David , Philips Graham 
Published: October 2005

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 χ2 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 = 13.2 vs 9.7 minutes, P= 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= 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= 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 more medium term (three months post‐operatively), patients still had an advantage in terms of post‐procedure adverse events in the ESSURE group (21%vs 50%).

Conclusions  This study provides evidence that ESSURE can be performed in the majority of women and, when successful, is associated with a greater overall patient satisfaction rate than laparoscopic sterilisation. Women also spend less time in hospital, have better tolerance of the procedure and describe less severe post‐operative pain. However, the devices cannot be bilaterally placed in all cases and some women do not tolerate the procedure awake.