Gynäkologisch-geburtshilfliche Rundschau
Übersichtsarbeit
Ist die Tubensterilisation noch eine zeitgemässe Verhütungsmethode?von Mering R. · Merki G.S. · Keller P.J.Klinik für Endokrinologie, Departement Frauenheilkunde, Universitätsspital Zürich, Schweiz
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Subscribe
For eJournal Archive and eJournal Backfiles information please contact Karger service
Article / Publication Details
Received: February 01, 2002
Accepted: June 21, 2002
Published online: December 23, 2002
Issue release date: January 2003
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 6
ISSN: 1018-8843 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0011 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/GGR
Abstract
Die Sterilisation wird von etwa 30% der Frauen mit abgeschlossener Familienplanung als Verhütungsmethode gewählt. Die kontrazeptive Sicherheit der Sterilisation ist mit einem Pearl-Index von 0,18 mit der Sicherheit hormoneller ovulationshemmender Methoden und moderner Intrauterinpessare vergleichbar. Schwangerschaften, die trotz Sterilisation eintreten, liegen häufig extrauterin. Extrauteringravidität kommt vermehrt bei jungen Frauen vor. Es gibt derzeit keine Hinweise auf einen negativen Einfluss der Sterilisation auf das Menstruationsmuster, dennoch wird in einigen Studien für Frauen mit Status nach Sterilisation eine erhöhte Hysterektomierate gefunden. Das Risiko, an einem Karzinom von Uterus oder Mamma zu erkranken, ist für Frauen mit Status nach Sterilisation nicht erhöht. Frauen mit Status nach Sterilisation erkranken seltener an einem Ovarialkarzinom. Das Risiko, den Entscheid für eine definitive Antikonzeption zu bedauern, ist bei jungen Frauen (Alter <30 Jahre), die bereits Kinder geboren haben, deutlich höher als bei Frauen mittleren Alters (>30 Jahre). Die Antikonzeption mittels Sterilisation eignet sich daher vor allem für Frauen ab Mitte Dreissig mit abgeschlossener Familienplanung, insbesondere wenn Kontraindikationen für reversible Verhütungsmethoden bestehen. Generell sollte auch die Möglichkeit einer Vasektomie diskutiert werden.
Related Articles:
Literatur
- Jamieson DJ, Hillis SD, Duerr A, Marchbanks PA, Costello C, Peterson HB: Complications of interval laparoscopic tubal sterilization: Findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:997–1002.
-
Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, Wilcox LS, Tylor LR, Trussell J: The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: Findings from the US Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1161–1168, discussion 1168–1170.
- Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, Wilcox LS, Tylor LR, Trussell J: The risk of ectopic pregnancy after tubal sterilization. US Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. N Engl J Med 1997;336:762–767.
- Peterson HB, Xia Z, Wilcox LS, Tylor LR, Trussell J: Pregnancy after tubal sterilization with bipolar electrocoagulation. US Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:163–167.
- Peterson HB, Jeng G, Folger SG, Hillis SA, Marchbanks PA, Wilcox LS: The risk of menstrual abnormalities after tubal sterilization. US Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1681–1687.
- Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB: Higher hysterectomy risk for sterilized than nonsterilized women: Findings from the US Collaborative Review of Sterilization. The US Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:241–246.
- Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB: Poststerilization regret: Findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:889–895.
- Trussell J, Hatcher RA, Cates W Jr, Stewart FH, Kost K: Contraceptive failure in the United States: An update. Stud Fam Plann 1990;21:51–54.
- Collaborative Study Group on the Desogestrel-Containing Progestogen-Only Pill: A double-blind study comparing the contraceptive efficacy, acceptability and safety of two progestogen-only pills containing desogestrel 75 μg/day or levonorgestrel 30 μg/day. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1998;3:169–178.
- Sivin I, el Mahgoub S, McCarthy T, Mishell DR Jr, Shoupe D, Alvarez F, et al: Long-term contraception with the levonorgestrel 20 μg/day (LNg 20) and the copper T 380Ag intrauterine devices: A five-year randomized study. Contraception 1990;42:361–378.
-
Merki-Feld GS, Münch L: Antikonzeptiva. Swiss Med Forum 2001;37:912–916.
- Mishell DR: Intrauterine devices: Mechanisms of Action, Safety, and Efficacy. Contraception 1998;58:45S–53S.
- Westhoff C: Tubal sterilization – Safe and effective. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1724–1726.
-
Williams EL, Jones HE, Merrill RE: The subsequent course of patients sterilized by tubal ligation: A consideration of hysterectomy for sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1951;61:423–426.
- Rulin MC, Davidson AR, Philliber SG, Graves WL, Cushman LF: Long-term effect of tubal sterilization on menstrual indices and pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:118–121.
- Kjer JJ, Knudsen LB: Ectopic pregnancy subsequent to laparoscopic sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:1202–1204.
- Vessey M, Huggins G, Lawless M, McPherson K, Yeates D: Tubal sterilization: Findings in a large prospective study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983;90:203–209.
- Cohen MM: Long-term risk of hysterectomy after tubal sterilization. Am J Epidemiol 1987;125:410–419.
- Westhoff C, Davis A: Tubal sterilization: Focus on the US experience. Fertil Steril 2000;73:913–922.
- Narod SA, Sun P, Ghadirian P, Lynch H, Isaacs C, Garber J, Weber B, Karlan B, Fishman D, Rosen B, Tung N, Neuhausen SL: Tubal ligation and risk of ovarian cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: A case-control study. Lancet 2001;357:1467–1470.
- Lacey JV Jr, Brinton LA, Mortel R, Berman ML, Wilbanks GD, Twiggs LB, Barrett RJ: Tubal sterilization and risk of cancer of the endometrium. Gynecol Oncol 2000;79:482–484.
- Li H, Thomas DB: Tubal ligation and risk of cervical cancer: The World Health Organization Collaborative Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraceptives. Contraception 2000;61:323–328.
- Oddens BJ: Women’s satisfaction with birth control: A population survey of physical and psychological effects of oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, condoms, natural family planning, and sterilization among 1,466 women. Contraception 1999;59:277–286.
- Korell M, Englmaier R, Hepp H: Effects of tubal sterilization. Zentralbl Gynäkol 2000;122:28–34.
- Neuhaus W, Marx C, Hamm W: Experiences with definitive contraception – Results of a follow-up study of sterilized women. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1995;55:135–139.
- Kendrick JS, Gonzales B, Huber DH, Grubb GS, Rubin GL: Complications of vasectomies in the United States. J Fam Pract 1987;25:245–248.
- Peterson HB, Howards SS: Vasectomy and prostate cancer: The evidence to date. Fertil Steril 1998;70:201–203.
- Schwingl PJ, Guess HA: Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy. Fertil Steril 2000;73:923–936.
- Moller H, Knudsen LB, Lynge E: Risk of testicular cancer after vasectomy: Cohort study of over 73,000 men. BMJ 1994;309:295–299.
- United Kingdom Testicular Cancer Study Group: Aetiology of testicular cancer: Association with congenital abnormalities, age at puberty, infertility, and exercise. BMJ 1994;308:1393–1399.
-
Perlman JA, Brawley OW, Ford LG, Kramer BS: Vasectomy and increased risk of prostate cancer. JAMA 1993;270:706–707.
- Ross JA, Huber DH: Acceptance and prevalence of vasectomy in developing countries. Stud Fam Plann 1983;14:67–73.
-
Liskin L, Pile JM, Quillin WF: Vasectomy – Safe and simple. Population Rep 1983;4:61–100.
- Abbuhl SB, Muskin EB, Shofer FS: Pelvic inflammatory disease in patients with bilateral tubal ligation. Am J Emerg Med 1997;15:271–274.
- Green A, Purdie D, Bain C, Siskind V, Russell P, Quinn M, Ward B: Tubal sterilisation, hysterectomy and decreased risk of ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer 1997;71:948–951.
-
Whitmore SE: Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, and risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA 1994;271:1236.
Article / Publication Details
Received: February 01, 2002
Accepted: June 21, 2002
Published online: December 23, 2002
Issue release date: January 2003
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 6
ISSN: 1018-8843 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0011 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/GGR
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
