title: A comparative study of hysteroscopic sterilization performed in-office versus a hospital operating room.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare hysteroscopic female sterilization procedures performed in-office versus a hospital operating room (OR) among newly trained physicians.
  
  
  METHODS
  Multisite hospital operating rooms and physician offices.
  
  
  METHODS
  Women desiring permanent hysteroscopic sterilization.
  
  
  METHODS
  Hysteroscopic female sterilization with the Essure system.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Procedure time (scope in/scope out time), device placement rates, and incidence of complications and adverse events were compared. There was no significant difference in scope time between the 2 settings. There was no significant difference in placement rates, although the placement rate was somewhat higher in-office (91% vs 88%). There were no complications among any of the procedures, and the incidence of minor adverse events was extremely low in both settings (OR=2%, in-office=1%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is no clear advantage to performing hysteroscopic sterilization in a hospital OR. Hysteroscopic sterilization can be performed safely and efficiently in an office setting.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Nichols
authors.forename: James F
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Carter
authors.forename: Donald L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Fylstra
authors.forename: Meredith
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Childers
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000556:Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D015907:Hysteroscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D009873:Operating Rooms; D010824:Physicians' Offices; D013246:Sterilization, Tubal / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D013997:Time Factors