Essure®目前的争议和5年的经验教训:一项短期和长期随访的回顾性研究。

Q2 Medicine
Gynecological Surgery Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-10-03 DOI:10.1186/s10397-017-1023-3
Sara Câmara, Filipa de Castro Coelho, Cláudia Freitas, Lilia Remesso
{"title":"Essure®目前的争议和5年的经验教训:一项短期和长期随访的回顾性研究。","authors":"Sara Câmara,&nbsp;Filipa de Castro Coelho,&nbsp;Cláudia Freitas,&nbsp;Lilia Remesso","doi":"10.1186/s10397-017-1023-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The risk-benefit of contraception with Essure® is being readdressed due to an increase of reports of adverse effects with this device. Our aim was to proceed to an internal quality evaluation and to identify opportunities for protocol improvement. We proceeded to a one-center, retrospective consecutive case series of women admitted for Essure® placement, from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2016 (5 years).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In a total of 274 women, technical difficulties were mainly unilateral, with no acute or short-term severe complications. The procedure was brief (median 3.2 min, IQR 2.5-5.2) and moderately painful (median of 4 in a 0-10 scale; IQR 3-5). At 3 months, the failure rate was 2%, with no pregnancies. Second surgery indication (< 1%) resumed to a case of nickel hypersensitivity. At 1 year, pregnancy rate was 1%. Ninety-eight percent of the patients would recommend the method.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified high patient satisfaction and low failure rates, both at short and long term. Investigation about whether some women still have patent tubes at the 3-month follow-up could lead to protocol improvement. It is important that clinicians look for second causes for adverse effects related to Essure® and avoid the erroneous indication for implant removal. Long follow-up allowed for both internal quality evaluation and clarification of misconception; it could possibly also have contributed to patient satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":46311,"journal":{"name":"Gynecological Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s10397-017-1023-3","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Essure® present controversies and 5 years' learned lessons: a retrospective study with short- and long-term follow-up.\",\"authors\":\"Sara Câmara,&nbsp;Filipa de Castro Coelho,&nbsp;Cláudia Freitas,&nbsp;Lilia Remesso\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s10397-017-1023-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The risk-benefit of contraception with Essure® is being readdressed due to an increase of reports of adverse effects with this device. Our aim was to proceed to an internal quality evaluation and to identify opportunities for protocol improvement. We proceeded to a one-center, retrospective consecutive case series of women admitted for Essure® placement, from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2016 (5 years).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In a total of 274 women, technical difficulties were mainly unilateral, with no acute or short-term severe complications. The procedure was brief (median 3.2 min, IQR 2.5-5.2) and moderately painful (median of 4 in a 0-10 scale; IQR 3-5). At 3 months, the failure rate was 2%, with no pregnancies. Second surgery indication (< 1%) resumed to a case of nickel hypersensitivity. At 1 year, pregnancy rate was 1%. Ninety-eight percent of the patients would recommend the method.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified high patient satisfaction and low failure rates, both at short and long term. Investigation about whether some women still have patent tubes at the 3-month follow-up could lead to protocol improvement. It is important that clinicians look for second causes for adverse effects related to Essure® and avoid the erroneous indication for implant removal. Long follow-up allowed for both internal quality evaluation and clarification of misconception; it could possibly also have contributed to patient satisfaction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gynecological Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s10397-017-1023-3\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gynecological Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1023-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/10/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecological Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1023-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/10/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

背景:使用Essure®避孕的风险-收益正在重新调整,因为该装置的不良反应报告增加。我们的目标是进行内部质量评估,并确定方案改进的机会。从2012年1月1日至2016年12月31日(5年),我们对接受Essure®安置的女性进行了单中心、回顾性连续病例系列研究。结果:274例产妇中,技术困难以单侧为主,无急性或短期严重并发症。手术时间短(中位数3.2分钟,IQR 2.5-5.2),疼痛适中(0-10分制中位数4分;差3 - 5)。在3个月时,失败率为2%,没有怀孕。结论:我们确定了高患者满意度和低失败率,无论是短期还是长期。调查是否有一些妇女在3个月的随访中仍然有输卵管,可能会导致方案的改进。重要的是,临床医生寻找与Essure®相关的不良反应的第二原因,并避免错误的指征。长时间的跟踪允许内部质量评估和澄清误解;这也可能有助于提高病人的满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Essure® present controversies and 5 years' learned lessons: a retrospective study with short- and long-term follow-up.

Background: The risk-benefit of contraception with Essure® is being readdressed due to an increase of reports of adverse effects with this device. Our aim was to proceed to an internal quality evaluation and to identify opportunities for protocol improvement. We proceeded to a one-center, retrospective consecutive case series of women admitted for Essure® placement, from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2016 (5 years).

Results: In a total of 274 women, technical difficulties were mainly unilateral, with no acute or short-term severe complications. The procedure was brief (median 3.2 min, IQR 2.5-5.2) and moderately painful (median of 4 in a 0-10 scale; IQR 3-5). At 3 months, the failure rate was 2%, with no pregnancies. Second surgery indication (< 1%) resumed to a case of nickel hypersensitivity. At 1 year, pregnancy rate was 1%. Ninety-eight percent of the patients would recommend the method.

Conclusions: We identified high patient satisfaction and low failure rates, both at short and long term. Investigation about whether some women still have patent tubes at the 3-month follow-up could lead to protocol improvement. It is important that clinicians look for second causes for adverse effects related to Essure® and avoid the erroneous indication for implant removal. Long follow-up allowed for both internal quality evaluation and clarification of misconception; it could possibly also have contributed to patient satisfaction.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: "Gynecological Surgery", founded in 2004, is the first and premier peer-reviewed scientific journal dedicated to all aspects of research, development, and training in gynecological surgery. This field is rapidly changing in response to new developments and innovations in endoscopy, robotics, imaging and other interventional procedures. Gynecological surgery is also expanding and now encompasses all surgical interventions pertaining to women health, including oncology, urogynecology and fetal surgery. The Journal publishes Original Research, Reviews, Evidence-based Viewpoints on clinical protocols and procedures, Editorials, Perspectives, Communications and Case Reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信