ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2024
Procedural and clinical outcomes of Adiana® hysteroscopic tubal occlusion in the Netherlands.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2024. 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.
- Is there a future for hysteroscopic sterilisation?Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Adiana® Permanent Contraception System was a hysteroscopic tubal occlusion device but was withdrawn from the market in 2012. Objective: To evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficacy of the Adiana hysteroscopic tubal occlusion. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational multicentre cohort study of 300 women undergoing hysteroscopic sterilisation using the Adiana® was conducted in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2012. All procedures were performed using the same study protocol. Three months after bilateral placement a hysterosalpingography (HSG) was performed to confirm tubal occlusion. In 2018-2020 follow-up questionnaires were sent to all women. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the success rate of the Adiana tubal occlusion technique. Successful tubal occlusion was defined as an uneventful procedure with occluded fallopian tubes according to the HSG after 3 months. Secondary outcomes were the success rate of the device placement, the number of complications during placement and the pregnancy rate. Results: Bilateral placement of Adiana devices was achieved in 93.5% of cases. Bilateral confirmed occlusion by HSG was accomplished in 87.9% of cases with successful Adiana placement. This was 77.1% in the intention-to-treat group. Complications and side effects were reported in 4.4% of women. The pregnancy rate was 3.6% in women with proven bilateral tubal occlusion. Conclusion: Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion using the Adiana technology is associated with a pregnancy rate of 3.6%. Although this technology was removed from the commercial market, this evaluation of the Adiana technology could provide useful information for the development of potential new, more effective hysteroscopic tubal occlusion devices. What’s new?: Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion techniques are no longer available on the market. This evaluation of Adiana could provide useful information for the development of potential new hysteroscopic tubal occlusion devices.
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.