Original research articleTubal sterilization during cesarean section or as an elective procedure? Effect on the ovarian reserve
Introduction
Contraception by tubal sterilization is the most popular method of fertility regulation among women throughout the world [1]. Between 1950 to 1982, voluntary sterilization increased 30-fold worldwide, the increase partly being attributed to surgical innovations that made sterilization a safe and effective outpatient procedure [2]. Approximately 190 million couples use tubal sterilization worldwide as a safe and reliable method of permanent birth control [3], [4]. In 2008, the frequency of the use of tubal sterilization as a contraceptive method among Turkish women aged between 15 and 49 years was found to be 8% [5].
There are various ways of occluding or disrupting tubal patency. Fallopian tubes may be surgically cut and ligated with or without a section of tube being removed; they may be mechanically blocked using clips or rings; they may be electrically coagulated; and they may be blocked by a fibrotic reaction induced by chemicals or microinserts [6].
Sterilization has been hypothesized to be associated with menstrual dysfunction by affecting ovarian function adversely resulting in dysfunctional uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, exacerbation of premenstrual symptoms and pelvic pain, and hormonal disturbances that characterize the so-called post-tubal ligation syndrome [7], [8]. These complications are thought to be related with the damage to the arterial blood supply to the ovaries. In addition, venous drainage may be compromised because venous plexuses are located near the arteries [9].
Tubal sterilization during a cesarean section is cost-effective and practical as the cost of the procedure is included in the cesarean section and it saves the patient from an additional intervention. In addition, tubal sterilization can also be performed as a planned interval procedure after the delivery. However, no reports have been published investigating the effects of tubal sterilization during cesarean section or as an elective procedure on the ovarian reserve. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effect of the timing of tubal sterilization procedure on the ovarian reserve.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
The study was carried out in the family planning unit between March 2010 and June 2011. Patient recruitment was done from the outpatient clinic, and all patients gave their informed consent for the study, which was also approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hospital, and the procedures followed were in accordance with the institutional guidelines. Fifty women admitted to our hospital who had undergone tubal sterilization 1 year before the study period were enrolled in the study. Data from the
Results
The characteristics of the patients included in the groups are shown in Table 1. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of mean age and BMI between the study and the control groups. The postoperative hormonal and ultrasonographic evaluations of the groups are summarized in Table 2. Mean blood E2, FSH and LH levels on the third day of the cycle postoperative 12 months after the surgical intervention did not show any significant differences in the groups with respect to their
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report which investigates the effects of tubal sterilization during cesarean section or performed as a planned interval procedure on the ovarian reserve. In the present study, ovarian function after tubal sterilization has been assessed by means of hormonal assays and ovarian morphology. Currently, the main techniques used to show ovarian function are hormonal tests reflecting ovarian follicular activity and transvaginal ultrasonography. Serum FSH
Acknowledgment
No funds were received for this study.
References (32)
- et al.
The effect of tubal sterilization through electrocoagulation on the ovarian reserve
Contraception
(2009) - et al.
A comparison of different laparoscopic techniques in 24439 procedures
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1982) - et al.
Is there any evidence for a post-tubal sterilization syndrome?
Fertil Steril
(1998) - et al.
Post-tubal sterilization problems correlated with ovarian steroidogenesis
Contraception
(1988) - et al.
Examination of changes caused by tubal sterilization in ovarian hormone secretion and uterine and ovarian artery blood flow rates
Contraception
(2004) - et al.
Long-term risk of menstrual disturbances after tubal sterilization
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1985) - et al.
Prognostic assessment of ovarian reserve
Fertil Steril
(1995) - et al.
Prognostic value of day 3 estradiol on in vitro fertilization outcome
Fertil Steril
(1995) - et al.
Assessment of ovarian reserve with anti-Müllerian hormone: a comparison of the predictive value of anti-müllerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, and age
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2008) Oestrogen deficiency after tubal ligation
Lancet
(1985)
Hormonal assessment of women submitted to tubal ligation
Contraception
Prospective study of the pituitary-ovarian function after tubal sterilization by the Pomeroy or Uchida techniques
Fertil Steril
The effect of surgical sterilization on ovarian function: a rat model
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
Effect of tubal sterilization on ovarian follicular reserve and function
Am J Obstet Gynecol
Hormone levels before and after tubal sterilization
Contraception
Hormonal and ovarian stromal blood supply changes after laparoscopic tubal sterilization: a prospective controlled study
Contraception
Cited by (14)
Longitudinal assessment of anti-Müllerian hormone after cesarean section and influence of bilateral salpingectomy on ovarian reserve
2021, ContraceptionCitation Excerpt :A randomized trial showed no difference in anti-Müllerian hormone level 8 weeks after surgery between bilateral salpingectomy and Parkland tubal ligation during cesarean section [7]. Similarly, a retrospective study revealed no negative effect on ovarian reserve 1 year after the Pomeroy tubal ligation during cesarean section [32]. Previous studies showed that anti-Müllerian hormone level decreased by 0.2−0.4 ng/mL per year among healthy women [33,34].
Management of Hydrosalpinx in the Era of Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
2021, Journal of Minimally Invasive GynecologyCitation Excerpt :Accordingly, over two-thirds of women who failed to conceive spontaneously would undergo another surgery to remove the reoccluded distal tube. Our meta-analysis excluded opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy and then we performed qualitative evaluation of 25 full-test articles [38,45,56–78], with 8 articles excluded [56–58,65,66,69,70]. Of the 17 remaining studies, 2 were RCTs comparing bilateral salpingectomy and tubal ligation [60,74] and 15 cohort or case control studies [38,45,59,61–63,68,71–73,75–79] (Table 2).
The effect of tubal sterilization with the Pomeroy technique and bipolar electrocauterization on the ovarian reserve and serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels in a rat model
2015, European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive BiologyCitation Excerpt :Advancements in minimally invasive surgical techniques have led to various approaches for occluding tubal patency, such as surgically cutting or ligating, mechanically blocking using clips or rings, electrically coagulating, and blocking chemically or with a micro-insert [3]. However, tubal sterilization has been known to cause post-tubal ligation syndrome, which is associated with menstrual irregularities, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, early menopausal symptoms, increased risk of osteoporosis, changes in sexual behavior [4], low luteal phase progesterone levels, low pre-ovulatory estradiol (E2) peak, and high mid-luteal E2 levels [5,6]. All of these complications are hypothesized to be associated with damage to the arteriovenous blood and neural supply of the ovaries [7].
Proximal tubal occlusion first or oocyte retrieval first for patients with hydrosalpinx?
2024, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics