ArticleContraception2020
Intrauterine fluid instillation to confirm tubal occlusion after transcervical permanent contraception: A pilot study
Article in Contraception, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of tubal patency based on peak injection pressure in four-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography among infertile females: a preliminary study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine if women with tubal patency experience more fluid loss compared to those with bilateral tubal occlusion following intrauterine instillation of fluid via a balloon catheter. STUDY
designIn this prospective cohort pilot study, we enrolled women with prior Essure® procedures and healthy controls from September 2016 to July 2017. We excluded women using an implant or intrauterine device, or with a prior cesarean delivery or permanent contraception procedures other than Essure®. An infusion pump delivered saline via balloon catheter under continuous pressure monitoring. After one minute, we withdrew the fluid and recorded volumes in and out. Subjects then underwent hysterosalpingogram for evaluation of tubal patency. We conducted crude analyses with t-tests and sensitivity analyses.
resultsWe recruited 23 participants; ten provided analyzable data in each group. Hysterosalpingogram confirmed patency in all control and occlusion in all post-Essure® subjects in the analysis group. We found the median volume of saline lost among control subjects [7.8 mL (7.4, 8.4)] larger than post-Essure® participants [2.2 mL (2.0, 3.8), p < 0.01]. While 50% of control subjects tolerated the full 10 mL of fluid instillation, none of the post-Essure® subjects tolerated this volume (p = 0.03). A combination of saline loss ≤4 mL and participant intolerance of the full 10 mL volume yielded sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.00) and specificity of 1.00 for bilateral tubal occlusion.
conclusionInstillation of a fixed volume into the uterus may discriminate between women with tubal patency and occlusion following permanent contraception procedures with high specificity and adequate sensitivity. These findings should be validated in larger, more diverse study populations. IMPLICATIONS: Confirmation of tubal occlusion following permanent contraception with an office-based approach could improve acceptability of transcervical approaches. The recent removal of Essure® from the U.S. market increases the need for novel transcervical procedures and occlusion verification methods.
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.