A comparative study of hysteroscopic sterilization performed in-office versus a hospital operating room.
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.
Nichols
Mark
M
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Carter
James F
JF
Fylstra
Donald L
DL
Childers
Meredith
M
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