ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2019
Quality of life after laparoscopic removal of Essure
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted laparoscopic Essure removal: a novel surgical approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- EssureJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2021Article
- Outcomes after a Uterine-Sparing Approach to Essure Contraceptive Device Removal.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess changes in quality of life after laparoscopic removal of Essure STUDY
designIn this prospective observational study in an academic research hospital, 80 women with new or worsening symptoms since placement of Essure
resultsHealth related quality of life (HRQL) was the primary outcome measured by the Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire and a global 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included assessment of pain, using continuous (VAS) and ordinal scales (Modified McGill Pain Questionnaire), menstrual bleeding (pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score) and surgical feasibility and safety. There was a significant improvement in quality of life in both mental and physical health aspects of the SF-12 (34.02 (+/-1.19) vs. 49.61 (+/-1.42, P < .0001) and 36.55 (+/-0.99) vs. 43.32 (+/-1.18, P < .0001 respectively) as well as global VAS assessment (+2.91 (SD +/-0.27)) at the end of the first post-operative month. These improvements were maintained at three and six months. Mean pain decreased at one month following surgery compared to baseline (VAS 3.6 (+/-0.36) to 1.4 (+/-0.25), P < .0001 and McGill pain score 18.70 (+/-1.88) to 4.73 (+/-0.90), P < .0001). Improvements of a similar magnitude were observed when analysis was restricted to the 47 women without concomitant uterine surgery. No significant changes in bleeding were seen following of Essure
conclusionLaparoscopic removal of Essure® devices in symptomatic women is technically successful and associated with short and medium-term improvement in quality of life as well as reduction in pelvic pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.