Tubal ligation via colpotomy or laparoscopy

A retrospective comparative study

Wei Hsi Chang, Jah Yao Liu, Yu Chi Yeh, Gwo Jang Wu, Yung Jong Chiang, Mu Hsien Yu, Chi Huang Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare transvaginal with laparoscopic tubal sterilization with respect to invasiveness and outcomes. Method: The outcomes of 103 patients who received interval tubal sterilization were compared. Group A (n = 38) underwent the transvaginal approach, group B (n = 38) a laparoscopic approach, and group C (n = 27) underwent mini-laparotomy due to difficulties encountered in one of the other procedures. Results: There were no significant differences in patient age between the groups. There was no significant difference in operative time or blood loss between groups A and B. Operative time was significantly longer in group C (120 ± 35 min) than group A (40 ± 5 min) or group B (45 ± 9 min) (p <0.05). Blood loss was significantly greater in group C (120 ± 30 ml) than in group A (10 ± 2 ml) or group B (10 ± 1 ml) (p <0.05). The cost of transvaginal tubal sterilization was the lowest, and that of mini-laparotomy was the highest. There was no contraception failure in any group. Conclusions: Transvaginal tubal sterilization is technically more difficult, but when correctly performed it is not associated with an increased complication rate, and is less costly than laparoscopic sterilization.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)805-808
Number of pages4
JournalArchives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Volume283
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Colpotomy
Tubal Sterilization
Laparoscopy
Retrospective Studies
Operative Time
Laparotomy
Contraception
Age Groups
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Colpotomy
  • Laparoscopy
  • Tubal occlusion
  • Tubal sterilization
  • Vaginal tubal ligation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Cite this

Tubal ligation via colpotomy or laparoscopy : A retrospective comparative study. / Chang, Wei Hsi; Liu, Jah Yao; Yeh, Yu Chi; Wu, Gwo Jang; Chiang, Yung Jong; Yu, Mu Hsien; Chen, Chi Huang.

In: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Vol. 283, No. 4, 04.2011, p. 805-808.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chang, Wei Hsi ; Liu, Jah Yao ; Yeh, Yu Chi ; Wu, Gwo Jang ; Chiang, Yung Jong ; Yu, Mu Hsien ; Chen, Chi Huang. / Tubal ligation via colpotomy or laparoscopy : A retrospective comparative study. In: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2011 ; Vol. 283, No. 4. pp. 805-808.
@article{40b3d9b30a174afe8386e90bf9afad14,
title = "Tubal ligation via colpotomy or laparoscopy: A retrospective comparative study",
abstract = "Objective: To compare transvaginal with laparoscopic tubal sterilization with respect to invasiveness and outcomes. Method: The outcomes of 103 patients who received interval tubal sterilization were compared. Group A (n = 38) underwent the transvaginal approach, group B (n = 38) a laparoscopic approach, and group C (n = 27) underwent mini-laparotomy due to difficulties encountered in one of the other procedures. Results: There were no significant differences in patient age between the groups. There was no significant difference in operative time or blood loss between groups A and B. Operative time was significantly longer in group C (120 ± 35 min) than group A (40 ± 5 min) or group B (45 ± 9 min) (p <0.05). Blood loss was significantly greater in group C (120 ± 30 ml) than in group A (10 ± 2 ml) or group B (10 ± 1 ml) (p <0.05). The cost of transvaginal tubal sterilization was the lowest, and that of mini-laparotomy was the highest. There was no contraception failure in any group. Conclusions: Transvaginal tubal sterilization is technically more difficult, but when correctly performed it is not associated with an increased complication rate, and is less costly than laparoscopic sterilization.",
keywords = "Colpotomy, Laparoscopy, Tubal occlusion, Tubal sterilization, Vaginal tubal ligation",
author = "Chang, {Wei Hsi} and Liu, {Jah Yao} and Yeh, {Yu Chi} and Wu, {Gwo Jang} and Chiang, {Yung Jong} and Yu, {Mu Hsien} and Chen, {Chi Huang}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s00404-010-1435-z",
language = "English",
volume = "283",
pages = "805--808",
journal = "Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics",
issn = "0932-0067",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tubal ligation via colpotomy or laparoscopy

T2 - A retrospective comparative study

AU - Chang, Wei Hsi

AU - Liu, Jah Yao

AU - Yeh, Yu Chi

AU - Wu, Gwo Jang

AU - Chiang, Yung Jong

AU - Yu, Mu Hsien

AU - Chen, Chi Huang

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - Objective: To compare transvaginal with laparoscopic tubal sterilization with respect to invasiveness and outcomes. Method: The outcomes of 103 patients who received interval tubal sterilization were compared. Group A (n = 38) underwent the transvaginal approach, group B (n = 38) a laparoscopic approach, and group C (n = 27) underwent mini-laparotomy due to difficulties encountered in one of the other procedures. Results: There were no significant differences in patient age between the groups. There was no significant difference in operative time or blood loss between groups A and B. Operative time was significantly longer in group C (120 ± 35 min) than group A (40 ± 5 min) or group B (45 ± 9 min) (p <0.05). Blood loss was significantly greater in group C (120 ± 30 ml) than in group A (10 ± 2 ml) or group B (10 ± 1 ml) (p <0.05). The cost of transvaginal tubal sterilization was the lowest, and that of mini-laparotomy was the highest. There was no contraception failure in any group. Conclusions: Transvaginal tubal sterilization is technically more difficult, but when correctly performed it is not associated with an increased complication rate, and is less costly than laparoscopic sterilization.

AB - Objective: To compare transvaginal with laparoscopic tubal sterilization with respect to invasiveness and outcomes. Method: The outcomes of 103 patients who received interval tubal sterilization were compared. Group A (n = 38) underwent the transvaginal approach, group B (n = 38) a laparoscopic approach, and group C (n = 27) underwent mini-laparotomy due to difficulties encountered in one of the other procedures. Results: There were no significant differences in patient age between the groups. There was no significant difference in operative time or blood loss between groups A and B. Operative time was significantly longer in group C (120 ± 35 min) than group A (40 ± 5 min) or group B (45 ± 9 min) (p <0.05). Blood loss was significantly greater in group C (120 ± 30 ml) than in group A (10 ± 2 ml) or group B (10 ± 1 ml) (p <0.05). The cost of transvaginal tubal sterilization was the lowest, and that of mini-laparotomy was the highest. There was no contraception failure in any group. Conclusions: Transvaginal tubal sterilization is technically more difficult, but when correctly performed it is not associated with an increased complication rate, and is less costly than laparoscopic sterilization.

KW - Colpotomy

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Tubal occlusion

KW - Tubal sterilization

KW - Vaginal tubal ligation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955940558&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955940558&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00404-010-1435-z

DO - 10.1007/s00404-010-1435-z

M3 - Article

VL - 283

SP - 805

EP - 808

JO - Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

JF - Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

SN - 0932-0067

IS - 4

ER -