Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Hysteroscopy pp 315–322Cite as

Hysteroscopy in Contraception: Side Effects Review—Is There Really a Problem?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Outpatient hysteroscopic sterilisation without anaesthetic, using the Essure® system, is quick, successful, safe, and associated with a high rate of patient satisfaction. The technique provides a convenient, cost-effective, and welcome alternative to couples regarding their choice of permanent fertility control. However, that permanent birth control presents adverse effects of the procedure: pain, discomfort, vasovagal syncope, nausea, fainting; benign adverse effects: pain, contractions, vaginal bleeding, discharge, pelvic inflammatory disease, menstrual period turned irregular, allergic reactions; and serious side effects: expulsion, perforation, failure, risk of regret. Erin Brockovich warned about new adverse events. According to her they could be caused by the Essure device: skin rash, chronic infections (vaginal, respiratory), fatigue, chronic sleeping, shakiness, memory loss, autoimmune disease, loss of voice, dysesthesia, blood pressure drop, weight changes, hair loss, mood changes such as depression, and various kinds of pain including headache, muscle pain, pain in legs, and so on.

Mechanically, it’s hard to charge Essure of all those side events. But nickel could affect the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and cause a lot of symptoms. It could be interesting to study Essure’s heavy materials dose delivered and its effects on women’s bodies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  1. Grosdemouge I, Engrand J-B, Dhainault C, Marchand F, Martigny H, Thevenot J, et al. Essure implants for tubal sterilisation in France. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2009;37(5):389–95. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19410494. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Panel P, Jost S, Grosdemouge I, Friederich L, Niro J, Le Tohic A. Contraception permanente par pose hystéroscopique d’implants tubaires. Gynécologie Obs Fertil. 2012;40(7–8):434–44. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22658908. [Internet; Cited 01 Feb 2017].

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kerin J, Carignan C, Cher D. The safety and effectiveness of a new hysteroscopic method for permanent birth control: results of the first Essure™ pbc clinical study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;41(4):364–70. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2001.tb01311.x. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Menez C, Lopes P. A new hysteroscopic method for sterilization: 45 patients. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2004;33(3):221–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15170436. [Internet; Cited 01 Feb 2017].

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Safi ZA, Shavell VI, Hobson DTG, Berman JM, Diamond MP, Chapman L, et al. Analysis of adverse events with Essure hysteroscopic sterilization reported to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;20(6):825–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24183273. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brito LGO, Cohen SL, Goggins ER, Wang KC, Einarsson JI. Essure surgical removal and subsequent symptom resolution: case series and follow-up survey. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(5):910–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chern B, Siow A. Initial Asian experience in hysteroscopic sterilisation using the Essure permanent birth control device. BJOG An Int. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112(9):1322–7. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00436.x. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Povedano B, Arjona J, Velasco E, Monserrat J, Lorente J, Castelo-Branco C. Complications of hysteroscopic Essure® sterilisation: report on 4306 procedures performed in a single centre. BJOG. 2012;119(7):795–9. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03292.x. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Friederich L, Chis C, Panel P. Comment je fais... une hystéroscopie avec pose d’implants Essure® par vaginoscopie. Gynécologie Obs Fertil. 2008;36(12):1239–40. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1297958908004542. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Grosdemouge I, Engrand J-B, Dhainault C, Marchand F, Martigny H, Thevenot J, et al. La pratique française de la pose des implants de stérilisation tubaire Essure®. Gynécologie Obs Fertil. 2009;37(5):389–95. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19410494. [Internet; Cited 01 Feb 2017].

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sinha D, Kalathy V, Gupta J, Clark T. The feasibility, success and patient satisfaction associated with outpatient hysteroscopic sterilisation. BJOG. 2007;114(6):676–83. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01351.x. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Panel P, Grosdemouge I, Duffy S, Marsh F, Rogerson L, Hudson H, et al. Predictive factors of Essure® implant placement failure: prospective, multicenter study of 495 patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(1):29–34. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0015028208040582. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Langenveld J, Veersema S, Bongers MY, Koks CA. Tubal perforation by Essure: three different clinical presentations. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5):2011.e5–2011.e10. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18692813. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vleugels MPH, Heckel S, Veersema S, Engrand JB, Villefranque V, Fernandez H, et al. Hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure® device in situ: a challenge? Gynecol Surg. 2011;8(1):51–5. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10397-010-0615-y. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hopkins MR, Creedon DJ, El-Nashar SA, Brown DL, Good AE, Famuyide AO. Radiofrequency global endometrial ablation followed by hysteroscopic sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14(4):494–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Valle RF, Valdez J, Wright TC, Kenney M. Concomitant Essure® tubal sterilization and Thermachoice® endometrial ablation: feasibility and safety. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(1):152–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Donnadieu AC, Deffieux X, Gervaise A, Faivre E, Frydman R, Fernandez H. Essure® sterilization associated with endometrial ablation. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;97(2):139–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mircea CN, Goojha C, Thiel JA. Concomitant NovaSure endometrial ablation and essure tubal sterilization: a review of 100 cases. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(4):361–6. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S170121631634854X. [Internet; Cited 25 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schäfer T, Böhler E, Ruhdorfer S, Weigl L, Wessner D, Filipiak B, et al. Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy. 2001;56(12):1192–6. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1034/j.1398-9995.2001.00086.x. [Internet; Cited 18 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Basinski CM, Juran RS, Fein A. Essure® Sterilization: experience and outcomes with 1024 patients in a solo practice over 8 years. J Gynecol Surg. 2016;32(3):173–8. Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/gyn.2015.0103. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zurawin RK, Zurawin JL. Adverse events due to suspected nickel hypersensitivity in patients with Essure micro-inserts. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(4):475–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Staerkjaer L, Menne T. Nickel allergy and orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1990;12(3):284–9. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ejo/12.3.284. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jia Z, Tu J, Wang K, Jiang G, Wang W. Allergic reaction following implantation of a nitinol alloy inferior vena cava filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(9):1375–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Siemons S, Vleugels M, van Eijndhoven H. Evaluation of nickel allergic reactions to the Essure micro insert: theoretical risk or daily practice? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(1):140–4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27621196. [Internet; Cited 25 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bibas N, Lassere J, Paul C, Aquilina C, Giordano-Labadie F. Nickel-induced systemic contact dermatitis and intratubal implants. Dermatitis. 2013;24(1):35–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23340398. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hillen U, Haude M, Erbel R, Goos M. Evaluation of metal allergies in patients with coronary stents. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47(6):353–6. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470607.x. [Internet; Cited 18 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Safi Z, Shavell VI, Katz LE, Berman JM. Nickel hypersensitivity associated with an intratubal microinsert system. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2, Part 2):461–2. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21252789. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hitzerd E, Schreuder HWR, Vleugels MPH, Veersema S. Twelve-year retrospective review of unintended pregnancies after Essure sterilization in the Netherlands. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(4):932–7. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0015028215023092. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gerritse MBE, Veersema S, Timmermans A, Brölmann HAM. Incorrect position of Essure microinserts 3 months after successful bilateral placement. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(3):930.e1–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18945426. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hur H-C, Mansuria SM, Chen BA, Lee TT. Laparoscopic management of hysteroscopic essure sterilization complications: report of 3 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(3):362–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18439513. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Legendre G, Varoux M, Nazac A, Fernandez H. Regret following hysteroscopic tubal sterilization. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2014;43(5):387–92. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24286930. [Internet; Cited 02 Feb 2017].

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Levy B, Levie MD, Childers ME, Kerin JF, Cooper JM, Price T, et al. A summary of reported pregnancies after hysteroscopic sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14(3):271–4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17478354. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jost S, Huchon C, Legendre G, Letohic A, Fernandez H, Panel P. Essure® permanent birth control effectiveness: a seven-year survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;168(2):134–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fernandez H, Legendre G, Blein C, Lamarsalle L, Panel P. Tubal sterilization: pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic versus laparoscopic sterilization in France, 2006–2010. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;180:133–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kerin JF, Cooper JM, Price T, Herendael BJ, Cayuela-Font E, Cher D, et al. Hysteroscopic sterilization using a micro-insert device: results of a multicentre Phase II study. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(6):1223–30. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12773450. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bahk CY, Goshgarian M, Donahue K, Freifeld CC, Menone CM, Pierce CE, et al. Increasing patient engagement in pharmacovigilance through online community outreach and mobile reporting applications: an analysis of adverse event reporting for the essure device in the US. Pharmaceut Med. 2015;29(6):331–40. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40290-015-0106-6. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Valle RF, Carignan CS, Wright TC, Ross J, Schwartz D, Wingo P, et al. Tissue response to the STOP microcoil transcervical permanent contraceptive device: results from a prehysterectomy study. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(5):974–80. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0015028201028588. [Internet; Cited 22 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Marcusson JA, Lindh G, Evengard B. Chronic fatigue syndrome and nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40(5):269–72. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1999.tb06061.x. [Internet; Cited 18 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Messer RLW, Wataha JC, Lewis JB, Lockwood PE, Caughman GB, Tseng W-Y. Effect of vascular stent alloys on expression of cellular adhesion molecules by endothelial cells. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2005;15(1):39–47. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15715515. [Internet; Cited 30 Jan 2017].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dasika UK, Kanter KR, Vincent R. Nickel allergy to the percutaneous patent foramen ovale occluder and subsequent systemic nickel allergy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126(6):2112. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14688749. [Internet; Cited 30 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Regland B, Zachrisson O, Stejskal V, Gottfries CG. Nickel allergy is found in a majority of women with chronic fatigue syndrome and muscle pain—and may be triggered by cigarette smoke and dietary nickel intake. J Chronic Fatigue Syndr. 2001;8(1):57–65. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1300/J092v08n01_04. [Internet; Cited 18 Jan 2017].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sterzl I, Procházková J, Hrdá P, Bártová J, Matucha P, Stejskal VD, et al. Mercury and nickel allergy: risk factors in fatigue and autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 1999;20:221–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Honari G, Ellis SG, Wilkoff BL, Aronica MA, Svensson LG, Taylor JS. Hypersensitivity reactions associated with endovascular devices. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59(1):7–22. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2008.01351.x. [Internet; Cited 30 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tschernitschek H, Borchers L, Geurtsen W. Nonalloyed titanium as a bioinert metal—a review. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(1):12. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S002239130600076X. [Internet; Cited 30 Jan 2017].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Siddiqi A, Payne AGT, De Silva RK, Duncan WJ. Titanium allergy: could it affect dental implant integration? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(7):673–80. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02081.x. [Internet; Cited 30 Jan 2017].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Toronto Health Economic and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative. Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization: a health economic literature review. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013;13(22):1–25. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24228085. [Internet; Cited 01 Feb 2017].

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

P. Baissas declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this chapter.

P. Panel is coordinating a medical study sponsored by Bayer Company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, Centre Hospitalier de Versailles, 177, rue de Versailles, 78150, Le Chesnay, France

    Pierre Panel M.D. & Pauline Baissas M.D.

Authors
  1. Pierre Panel M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pauline Baissas M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pauline Baissas M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale Vito Fazzi, Lecce, Italy

    Andrea Tinelli

  2. Hysteroscopy Unit, Gutenberg Institute, Malaga, Spain

    Luis Alonso Pacheco

  3. Hysteroscopy Unit, Hospital Del Mar, Barcelona, Spain

    Sergio Haimovich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Panel, P., Baissas, P. (2018). Hysteroscopy in Contraception: Side Effects Review—Is There Really a Problem?. In: Tinelli, A., Alonso Pacheco, L., Haimovich, S. (eds) Hysteroscopy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57559-9_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57559-9_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57558-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57559-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation