Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29362796›Full record

Observational studyJAMA2018

Association of Hysteroscopic vs Laparoscopic Sterilization With Procedural, Gynecological, and Medical Outcomes.

Kim Bouillon, Marion Bertrand, Georges Bader, Jean-Philippe Lucot, Rosemary Dray-Spira, Mahmoud Zureik

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Care Pathways and Determinants in Essure® Contraceptive Implant Use and Removal: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Vasectomy Procedures on the Rise in France From 2010 to 2022.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025
    Article
  5. Is there a future for hysteroscopic sterilisation?Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Results of the Insertion of Hysteroscopic Sterilization Devices in a Brazilian Public Hospital.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kim BouillonDepartment of Epidemiology of Health Products, French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM), Saint-Denis, France.
Marion BertrandDepartment of Epidemiology of Health Products, French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM), Saint-Denis, France.
Georges BaderDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Poissy Hospital, Poissy, France.
Jean-Philippe LucotDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Centre Hospitalier de Bethune, Bethune, France.
Rosemary Dray-SpiraDepartment of Epidemiology of Health Products, French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM), Saint-Denis, France.
Mahmoud ZureikDepartment of Epidemiology of Health Products, French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM), Saint-Denis, France.
Centre Hospitalier de Béthune · FRCentre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy · FRUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Safety of hysteroscopic sterilization has been recently questioned following reports of general symptoms such as allergy, tiredness, and depression in addition to associated gynecological results such as pelvic pain, perforation of fallopian tubes or uterus, and unwanted pregnancy. Objective: To compare the risk of reported adverse events between hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: French nationwide cohort study using the national hospital discharge database linked to the health insurance claims database. Women aged 30 to 54 years receiving a first hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization between 2010 and 2014 were included and were followed up through December 2015. Exposures: Hysteroscopic sterilization vs laparoscopic sterilization. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risks of procedural complications (surgical and medical) and of gynecological (sterilization failure that includes salpingectomy, second sterilization procedure, or pregnancy; pregnancy; reoperation) and medical outcomes (all types of allergy; autoimmune diseases; thyroid disorder; use of analgesics, antimigraines, antidepressants, benzodiazepines; outpatient visits; sickness absence; suicide attempts; death) that occurred within 1 and 3 years after sterilization were compared using inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox models. Results: Of the 105 357 women included (95.5% of eligible participants; mean age, 41.3 years [SD, 3.7 years]), 71 303 (67.7% ) underwent hysteroscopic sterilization, and 34 054 (32.3%) underwent laparoscopic sterilization. During the hospitalization for sterilization, risk of surgical complications for hysteroscopic sterilization was lower: 0.13% for hysteroscopic sterilization vs 0.78% for laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted risk difference [RD], -0.64; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.60) and was lower for medical complications: 0.06% vs 0.11% (adjusted RD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). During the first year after sterilization, 4.83% of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization had a higher risk of sterilization failure than the 0.69% who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 7.11; 95% CI, 5.92 to 8.54; adjusted RD, 4.23 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 3.40 to 5.22). Additionally, 5.65% of women who underwent hysteroscopic sterilization required gynecological reoperation vs 1.76% of women who underwent laparoscopic sterilization (adjusted HR, 3.26; 95% CI, 2.90 to 3.67; adjusted RD, 4.63 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 3.38 to 4.75); these differences persisted after 3 years, although attenuated. Hysteroscopic sterilization was associated with a lower risk of pregnancy within the first year of the procedure but was not significantly associated with a difference in risk of pregnancy by the third year (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83-1.30; adjusted RD, 0.01 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.07). Risks of medical outcomes were not significantly increased with hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization. Conclusions and Relevance: Among women undergoing first sterilization, the use of hysteroscopic sterilization was significantly associated with higher risk of gynecological complications over 1 year and over 3 years than was laparoscopic sterilization. Risk of medical outcomes was not significantly increased over 1 year or over 3 years. These findings do not support increased medical risks associated with hysteroscopic sterilization.

Indexed as

AdultCohort StudiesFemaleFranceHumansHysteroscopyLaparoscopyMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedReoperationSterilization, TubalTreatment Failure

Identifiers

PMID29362796
PMCPMC5833563
OpenAlexW2786599866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.