Adopted by more than 180 million women worldwide, female sterilization ranks as one of the more popular contraceptive methods.¹ Globally and in the United States, female sterilization is 2.5- to 4-times more prevalent than male sterilization.^1,2 Until recently, medically preferred, tubal sterilization techniques required a transabdominal approach. Since 2000, the Essure transcervical method of tubal sterilization has been approved in Australia, Singapore, parts of Europe, Canada, and the United States. Sterilization differs from other methods of contraception because it is meant to be permanent. This permanence, along with the fact that this elective procedure is usually performed in healthy women of reproductive age, raises several issues. Among them are issues surrounding the decision-making process and the incidence of long-term side effects. This chapter focuses on current evidence about regret about sterilization and sterilization failure. It also addresses the influence of sterilization on other aspects of women's health. These include menstrual cycle changes, cancer incidence, hysterectomy, bone density, the risk of sexually transmitted disease, sexuality, and preventive care. Although long-term data about Essure transcervical sterilization do not exist, there is no reason to believe that issues of regret, influence of the procedure on future health and counseling regarding permanence should be any different than what is seen or expected with transabdominal approaches to sterilization. This chapter discusses the topics listed here in light of how to best counsel and support patients throughout their decision-making process.

Cohort, case control, and descriptive studies indicate that most women who have undergone sterilization do not regret it.^3,4,5,6,7,8 Although reassuring, this finding does not negate regret's importance when it does arise. Depending on the design of the study undergoing consideration, the percentages of women who express regret has ranged from .9% to 26%. Many of these studies reported any occurrence of regret; few measured its significance or persistence. In some studies, a woman's seeking reversal of the sterilization procedure was used as a proxy for the significance of her regret. Using this proxy, researchers who analyzed the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth found that although 26% of sterilized women said that they wanted more children, only 10% wanted to reverse the procedure. This shows how complex it is for researchers to determine the significance of a woman's regret.

Researchers have tried to isolate patient characteristics associated with subsequent regret. Factors often associated with regret after sterilization include a woman's being young at the time of the procedure and her experience of unforeseen life events (e.g., a new spouse or a child's death).^5,8 In most studies, the strongest predictor of regret is sterilization occurring at age 30 or younger. In the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization (CREST), the cumulative probability of regret within 14 years after tubal sterilization was 20.3% for women age 30 or younger at the time of the procedure, and 5.9% for women older than age 30.⁵ In addition, regret arises more often among women who chose sterilization under pressure from a partner or health care provider. It is also more likely to trouble women who had poor communication or conflicts with their partner during the decision-making process. Women who underwent sterilization solely for a medical indication are also more likely to feel regret.^5–14

Contrary to popular belief, several studies report that the number of children a woman has does not correlate with regret. The CREST found that nulliparous women are no more likely to experience regret than multiparous women. The data are unclear on the question of whether women are more likely to experience regret if the sterilization is performed immediately after vaginal delivery or concurrent with cesarean section.^{5,8,9,10,15,16,17,18,19,20} Furthermore, data have consistently shown that women are not more likely to experience regret when sterilization is performed along with an induced abortion.^9,20,21,22

Risk factors cannot reliably predict which women will regret the procedure. As indicated by CREST findings, while the probability of regret was greatest in younger women, 80% of these young women experienced no regret 14 years postprocedure. For these reasons, no woman should be denied sterilization as long as she has considered the procedure's impact on her current life and on her life as it might be if her circumstances change greatly. Faced with a woman characterized by one of the factors listed as being associated with regret, most clinicians encourage her to think about her full range of contraceptive options, yet they will not deny her the procedure. This course of action is prudent, ethical, and appropriate.

The antithesis of regret after sterilization is failure of the procedure. Sterilization failure is a rare complication that may occur many years after the procedure was performed. For transabdominal approaches, historically reported failure rates of 3 to 4 failures per 1000 procedures in the first year after the operation and 1 failure per 1000 procedures in subsequent years were based on data limited to the first 2 years after surgery.^23,24,25 More current data reveal that failure rates are higher than originally thought among women 2 or more years after sterilization.^26,27 Researchers in Thailand have reported an 8-year failure rate of 1.5%. Consistent with this Thai statistic, the United States-based CREST study reported a 10-year cumulative failure rate of 1.85% for all sterilization methods.^26,27 CREST's cumulative rate of 1.85% represents a summary figure encompassing the rates for many different occlusive methods. The 10-year cumulative failure rates range from a low of .75% for unipolar coagulation and postpartum partial salpingectomy to a high of 3.65% for spring clip application.²⁷ Because it has been in use for only a few years, long-term failure rates are not available for the Essure transcervical method of sterilization.

Another transcervical approach that is clouded in political and scientific controversy is the quinacrine method of sterilization. In parts of the developing world, tens of thousands of women underwent quinacrine sterilization in the 1990s. This method is currently undergoing carcinogenicity and mutagenicity testing in the United States. Retrospective studies of women sterilized with quinacrine in Viet Nam reveal a 5-year failure rate of 12.6 per 100 women receiving two insertions. The 5-year failure rate decreases to 6.8 per 100 women in women age 35 and older at the time of sterilization.²⁸

Although the CREST data emerge from one of the longest, largest, cohort studies of transabdominal female sterilization to date, one must use caution before extrapolating these data to all situations. The CREST Study was conducted in teaching institutions, and no information is given regarding operator experience. Data have consistently shown that female sterilization is highly effective, regardless of the occlusive technique used, when performed by experienced operators using proper technique and appropriately selected patients.^{24,27,28,29,30,31} A reanalysis of the unexpectedly high failure rate for bipolar coagulation showed that the 5-year cumulative failure rate for procedures performed early in the study, when this laparoscopic technique was fairly new, was 1.95%. This rate is three-times higher (1.95% vs. .62%) than the failure rate for procedures performed later in the study.²⁷ Moreover, 5-year cumulative failure rates were much lower if each tube was coagulated at three or more sites, rather than one or two sites (.32% vs. 1.29%). This .32% statistic is not statistically different from the rate reported for unipolar coagulation (.23%) during the same time period.³²

Reasons for sterilization failure include undetected preexisting pregnancy (luteal phase pregnancy), occlusion of the wrong structure, incomplete or inadequate occlusion, slippage of a mechanical device, development of a tuboperitoneal fistula, and spontaneous reanastomosis or recanalization of the previously separated tubal segments.^{33,34,35,36,37} If the wrong structure is occluded, it is commonly the round ligament. When sterilization failures occur with the use of rings and clips, incorrect positioning of the device relative to the tube is commonly identified as the cause.^{24,28,29,36,38} With failures after bipolar cautery, incomplete destruction of an adequate length of tube is the usual cause.^35,39

When sterilization failure occurs, the pregnancy is more likely to be ectopic than it would be in a woman who has not been using contraception and becomes pregnant. In the CREST study, of the 143 pregnancies that occurred after failed sterilization, one-third were ectopic.⁴⁰ This level far exceeds the .05% ectopic pregnancies that can be expected among women using no contraception who become pregnant. CREST data further showed that the proportion of ectopic pregnancies was three-times greater 4 or more years after sterilization, compared with failures occurring during the first 3 years after the procedure.

The overall risk of pregnancy is low among sterilized women. Therefore, the absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy among them is substantially lower than the absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy among women not using contraception or those using intrauterine devices (IUDs).^{35,40,41,42,43,44,45} By analyzing case-control data, Holt and colleagues found that women undergoing interval sterilization had .8-times (range: .4 to 1.7) the risk of ectopic pregnancy of current IUD users, and .2-times (range: .1 to .3) the risk of women using no contraception.⁴¹

Since the 1950s, researchers have published work debating whether significant menstrual changes occur after tubal sterilization. Researchers, prompted by subjective reports and retrospective studies, have postulated that tubal occlusion may cause menstrual changes through various mechanisms. Among them are: (1) interruption and reduction of blood supply to the ovaries. This could cause ovarian dysfunction and alter the ovaries' production and/or release of estrogen and progesterone; (2) interference with the direct diffusion of estrogen and progesterone from the ovaries to the uterus, leading to endometrial malfunction; (3) interference with the prostaglandin feedback mechanism between the uterus and ovary with deficient prostaglandin production and disturbances in ovarian steroidogenesis; and (4) uterine vascular congestion.

These cited hypotheses rest on the premise that tubal occlusion causes a clinically significant interruption of mesosalpingeal and broad ligament vessels. On theoretical grounds alone, such theories arouse suspicion. Two thirds of the ovarian blood supply comes from the uterine artery, through the tubal artery, and one-third is from the ovarian artery. Given that the anastomotic network between the tubal and ovarian arteries is extensive, it is unlikely that interruption of one of these arteries would result in clinically remarkable reduction in blood flow to the ovaries.⁴⁶ Investigations designed to gauge ovarian hormonal patterns after sterilization have yielded conflicting results. These results, though, remain largely within the vast range of normal values.^47,48,49

Early cohort and case control studies that reported menstrual function after tubal sterilization often failed to control for confounding factors. Among such confounding factors are previous contraceptive use, previous menstrual pattern, and advancing age, all of which can affect menstrual patterns.^{33,50,51,52,53} Many early studies also failed to control systematically for other potential confounding variables such as pre-existing gynecologic disorders, parity, and recall bias.^{33,50,51,52,53} Depending on the study, there were also problems with study design and implementation. These problems included a high percentage of participants lost to follow-up, inappropriate controls, and vague definitions.

Most cohort studies that controlled for previous menstrual history, previous contraception, or increasing age showed no significant menstrual changes after sterilization.^{54,55,56,57,58} This finding remains unchanged when the data are analyzed by the method of tubal occlusion used. Although earlier studies had indicated that menstrual cycle changes were more commonly associated with unipolar coagulation, more recent ones have found no association with a particular method of occlusion.^23,59,60,61

There is less clarity in the data from studies that followed-up women for more than 2 years. Of four prospective studies that followed-up women for 4.5 to 6 years, two report menstrual function changes, whereas two report none.^19,62,63,64 Studies of more objective measures of ovarian function, rather than recall, do not show any consistent changes in progesterone or estrogen levels. Furthermore, studies that objectively measured presterilization and poststerilization menstrual blood loss showed no significant difference before and after the procedure.^46,49,65

Menstrual histories of more than 9000 women sterilized during the CREST study and more than 566 women whose partners underwent vasectomy during the same time period were analyzed to determine whether there might be a causal association between sterilization and menstrual changes.⁶⁶ Women who had undergone sterilization were more likely to have experienced decreases in amount of bleeding, the number of days of bleeding and the amount of menstrual pain, but an increase in cycle irregularity. These changes, which tend to be inconsistent with other studies that suggested menstrual cycle changes after sterilization, were attributed to chance statistical significance based on the multiple comparisons made during analysis or to unmeasured differences between the two groups of women. The authors concluded that the most likely explanation for menstrual cycle changes seen after sterilization is coincidental association, because tubal sterilization and menstrual abnormalities are both common events.⁶⁶

Many cohort or case-control studies that report on future risk of hysterectomy among sterilized women have shown relative risks that range from 1.3 to 4.4.^{50,67,68,69,70,71,72} However, researchers have found no direct physiologic cause for such heightened risk. Furthermore, other studies have indicated no increase in the risk of hysterectomy or have shown reduced risk.^25,72,73 In those studies that have shown increased risk, the increase has been observed in women who were younger than age 30 to 35 years at the time of their sterilization.^{48,67,68,70,72} One nonbiologic explanation that some have proposed to explain observations of increased hysterectomy risk is that physicians who perform sterilization and women who choose it have a leaning toward surgical intervention. Some theorize, too, that nonsterilized women may avoid hysterectomy as a solution to gynecologic disorders, either because they wish to avoid surgery or because they wish to remain fertile.^48,72 Another noncausal explanation theorizes that sterilization may be a response to a history of previous adverse obstetric and gynecologic events; Santow and Bracher have correlated sterilization and hysterectomy with IUD removal secondary to side effects and with multiple fetal losses.⁷³

Recently, there have been published case series of women who have had a tubal sterilization in the past, who subsequently undergo rollerball endometrial ablation or endometrial resection for treatment of menorrhagia, and who later have cyclic severe cramping pain, thought secondary to trapped endometrial tissue, resulting in hematosalpinges or endometriosis in the proximal segment of the fallopian tube.^74,75,76 In search for risk factors for hysterectomy after rollerball endometrial ablation, Mall and associates conducted a case-control study that indicated a statistically significant association between previous tubal ligation and hysterectomy. In this study, 15 of 21 subsequent hysterectomies occurred among women with a previous tubal ligation. Reasons for the hysterectomy (menorrhagia alone vs. menorrhagia and pelvic pain vs. pain only) were not statistically different between the two groups of women. Of the 15 pathology reports reviewed, three had evidence of trapped endometrial tissue or proximal tubal dilatation.⁷⁷ Whether a postablation tubal sterilization syndrome with associated risk of hysterectomy really exists will require additional studies.

Few studies have addressed the influence of sterilization on the incidence of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, or bone mineral density. The Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study involved 4742 women in a case-control study that found no association between sterilization and breast cancer.⁷⁹ Case-control studies report no increase in relative risk for endometrial cancer,^80,81 nor have statistically significant relationships between bone mineral density and sterilization been reported.⁸²

Many cohort and case-control studies have reported a protective effect of sterilization against ovarian cancer that prevails during the first 15 years after the procedure.^{83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90} Researchers hypothesize that this protection results from the ovaries' reduced exposure to inert or infectious causes or to promoters of malignant transformation.^84,88,91 Although researchers have yet to pinpoint a biologic mechanism, the consistency of the finding of reduced ovarian cancer risk across studies supports the validity of this observation.

Although sterilization does not protect women from acquiring sexually transmitted infections, it does protect them against pelvic inflammatory disease. It does so by limiting the spread of organisms from the lower genital tract to the peritoneal cavity.^{25,92,93,94,95} The protection, however, is not complete. There have been rare reports of pelvic inflammatory disease and tuboovarian abscess, diagnosed soon after the procedure and many years later.^93,96,97,98

Although retrospective studies have reported both improvement and deterioration of sexuality after sterilization,^{6,99,100,101,102} most prospective studies show neither effect. Prospective studies have generally reported no change or improvements in sexual function, sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, coital frequency, and self-perceived femininity.^{6,102,103,104,105}

Data suggest that sterilized women in the United States are less likely to return for annual screening than women who use reversible contraception.^106,107 In addition, researchers have discovered that the sexual partners of sterilized women use condoms less often than those of other women.^106,107

Female sterilization is a safe and minor operation. On balance, it entails few risks and substantial benefits for a couple or a woman when they have no further desire to bear children. Primary sources of discontent result from the procedure's failure, regret over having had it performed, and subsequent health changes that are attributed to sterilization. Physicians can help to minimize such discontent through their competent performance of the procedure and by taking measures to ensure that women reach this important decision only after careful thought.

For a woman or a couple to reach a deliberate, informed decision regarding female sterilization, certain conditions must prevail. The woman (or couple) needs to know about the options among reversible contraceptives and about vasectomy. They must also understand the intended irreversibility of the procedure. She must understand how the sterilization will be performed, the type of anesthesia to be used, and the operative risks. She must also understand that if she experiences the rare complication of pregnancy after the procedure, she must seek a prompt evaluation because of her heightened risk for an ectopic pregnancy.

A woman considering sterilization also needs to think about the chances that her life situation will change. She needs to have decided that any such change will not alter her satisfaction with having had the procedure. She needs to have consulted all the individuals with whom she wants to confer and to feel comfortable proceeding in the light of these conversations. She must recognize that although no one can predict her future health status with certainty, research data indicate that she will not be at heightened risk for an illness just because she has been sterilized.

Because anyone's future health is unpredictable and because protection against ovarian cancer and upper genital tract infections that sterilization confers is only partial, she needs to realize that she will still need regular preventive care, including pelvic examinations. As importantly, she needs to recognize that sterilization does not protect against sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, so condom use for STI prevention is as important after sterilization as it is with reversible methods of contraception. It is encouraging that after such messages, researchers at Baylor found an increase in intended condom use of 32% to 51% of women undergoing sterilization.¹⁰⁸

She should understand that tubal sterilization does not protect against disorders that may require hysterectomy. Some women who have undergone tubal sterilization eventually do, in fact, have disorders that prompt hysterectomy. These disorders would have occurred whether or not the sterilization had taken place.

Based on current data, the woman who chooses sterilization may be more prone to decide on a hysterectomy at a future date. Most people think that this finding reflects that women who have experienced one successful surgical solution may be more amenable to surgery than women who have not opted to be sterilized. The woman considering sterilization should know that there is no conclusive evidence that the operation will change her menstrual pattern or any pain associated with menstruation. If, however, she has been using hormonal contraception or an intrauterine device up until the time of her sterilization, she may experience a change in the timing, blood loss, or pain associated with menses. These kinds of changes arise because of the discontinuation of the previous method, not because of the sterilization.

The level of understanding described in the preceding paragraphs does not occur in a 30- to 60-minute clinical session. As with any irreversible decision, a woman's choice of sterilization warrants careful consideration over time. Some women have received enough information to have thoughtfully reached their decision before entering the clinician's office. Others receive exposure to the idea of sterilization for the first time when they meet with their health care provider. Most know something about the procedure but grow in their understanding after they consult with this provider. The provider must speak with each woman to figure out what she knows of the vast continuum of knowledge needed to reach this decision. Only with this understanding of each woman interested in sterilization will the provider be able to fully serve the individual as she weighs her choices.

1. EngenderHealth; Contraceptive Sterilization Global Issues and Trends. Sterilization Incidence and Prevalence. pp 17-64, EngenderHealth, 2002

2. Piccinino LJ, Mosher WD: Trends in contraceptive use in the United States. 1982–1995;Fam Plann Perspect 30:4, 1998

3. Allyn DP, Leton DA, Westcott NA et al: Presterilization counseling and women's regret about having been sterilized. J Reprod Med 31:1027, 1986

4. Henshaw SK, Singh S: Sterilization regret among US couples. Fam Plann Perspect 18:238, 1986

5. Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR et al: Poststerilization regret: Findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 93:889, 1999

6. Philliber SG, Philliber WW: Social and psychological perspectives on voluntary sterilization: a review. Stud Fam Plann 16:1, 1985

7. Shain RN, Miller WB, Holden AEC: Married women's dissatisfaction with tubal sterilization and vasectomy at first-year follow-up: Effects of perceived spousal dominance. Fertil Steril 45:808, 1986

8. Wilcox LS, Chu SY, Peterson HB: Characteristics of women who considered or obtained tubal reanastomosis: results from a prospective study of tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 75:661, 1990

9. Abraham S, Jansen R, Fraser IS et al: Characteristics, perceptions, and personalities of women seeking a reversal of their tubal sterilization. Med J Aust 145:4, 1986

10. Leader A, Galan N, George R et al: A comparison of definable traits in women requesting reversal of sterilization and women satisfied with sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 145:198, 1983

11. Boring CC, Rochat RW, Becerra J: Sterilization regret among Puerto Rican women. Fertil Steril 49:937, 1988

12. Miller WB, Shain RN, Pasta DJ: The pre- and poststerilization predictors of poststerilization regret in husbands and wives. J Nerv Ment Dis 179:602, 1991

13. Thranov I, Kjersgaard AG, Rasmussen OV et al: Regret among 547 Danish sterilized women. Scan J Soc Med 16:41, 1988

14. Vieira EM, Ford NJ: Regret after female sterilization among low-income women in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Int Fam Plann Persp 22:32, 1996

15. Chi IC, Wilkens LR, Gates D et al: Tubal ligation at cesarean delivery in five Asian centers: A comparison with tubal ligation soon after vaginal delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 30:257, 1989

16. Emens JM, Olive JE: Timing of female sterilization. BMJ 2:1126, 1978

17. Schwyhart WR, Kutner SJ: A reanalysis of female reactions to contraceptive sterilization [review]. J Nerv Ment Dis 156:354, 1973

18. Xue P, Fa YY: Microsurgical reversal of female sterilization. J Reprod Med 34:451, 1989

19. Grubb GS, Peterson HB, Layde PM et al: Regret after decision to have a tubal sterilization. Fertil Steril 44:248, 1985

20. Platz-Christensen JJ, Tronstad SE, Johansson O et al: Evaluation of regret after tubal sterilization. Int J Gynecol Obstet 38:223, 1992

21. Cheng MCE, Cheong J, Ratnam SS et al: Psychosocial sequelae of abortion and sterilization: A controlled study of 200 women randomly allocated to either a concurrent or interval abortion and sterilization. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol 12:193, 1986

22. Dueholm S, Zingenburg HJ, Sandgren G: Late sequelae after laparoscopic sterilization in the pregnant and nonpregnant woman. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 66:227, 1987

23. Bhiwandiwala PP, Mumford SD, Feldblum PJ: A comparison of different laparoscopic sterilization occlusion techniques in 24,439 procedures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 144:319, 1982

24. Stovall TG, Ling FW, Henry GM et al: Method failures of laparoscopic tubal sterilization in a residency training program-a comparison of the tubal ring and spring-loaded clip. J Reprod Med 36:283, 1991

25. Vessey M, Huggins G, Lawless, et al: Tubal sterilization: Findings in a large prospective study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 90:203, 1983

26. Koetsawang S, Gates DS, Suwanichati S et al: Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sterilizations by electrocoagulation, the Hulka clip and the tubal ring. Contraception 41:9, 1990

27. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM et al: The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the US collaborative review of sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:1161, 1996

28. EngenderHealth: Contraceptive Sterilization: Global Issues and Trends. Female Sterilization. pp 139-160, EngenderHealth, 2002

29. Aubert J, Garcia A: Improving Falope ring application in laparoscopy training. J Reprod Med 32:340, 1987

30. Chi I, Laufe LE, Gardner SD et al: An epidemiologic study of risk factors associated with pregnancy following female sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 136:768, 1980

31. Mehta PV: A total of 250,136 laparoscopic sterilizations by a single operator. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 96:1024, 1989

32. Stovall TG, Ling FW, O'Kelley KR et al: Gross and histologic examination of tubal ligation failures in a residency training program. Obstet Gynecol 76:461, 1990

33. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Wilcox LS: Pregnancy after tubal sterilization with bipolar electrocoagulation. Obstet Gynecol 94:163, 1999

34. Huggins GR, Sondheimer SJ: Complications of female sterilization: Immediate and delayed. Fertil Steril 41:337, 1984

35. Hulka JF: Methods of female sterilization. In: Nichols DH, (ed): Gynecologic and Obstetric Surgery. St Louis, Mosby, 1993

36. McCausland A: High rate of ectopic pregnancy following laparoscopic tubal coagulation failures. Incidence and etiology Am J Obstet Gyn 136:97, 1980

37. Soderstrom R: Sterilization failures and their causes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 152:395, 1985

38. Stock RJ, Nelson KJ, Hakverdi AU et al: Ectopic pregnancy subsequent to sterilization: Histologic evaluation and clinical implications. Fertil Steril 42:211, 1984

39. Hulka JF: Gynecologic laparoscopy. In: Sciarra JJ, (ed): Gynecology and Obstetrics. Vol 1:Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1990

40. Soderstrom RM: Female sterilization. Encycl Reprod 2:243, 1999

41. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM et al: The risk of ectopic pregnancy after tubal sterilization. N Engl J Med 336:762, 1997

42. Holt VL, Chu J, Daling JR et al: Tubal sterilization and subsequent ectopic pregnancy: A case-control study. JAMA 266:242, 1991

43. DeStefano F, Peterson HB, Layde PM et al: Risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 60:326, 1982

44. Franks AL, Beral V, Cates W Jr et al: Contraception and ectopic pregnancy risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 163:1120, 1990

45. Kjer JJ, Knudsen LB: Ectopic pregnancy subsequent to laparoscopic sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 160:1202, 1989

46. Tatum HJ, Schmidt FH: Contraceptive and sterilization practices and extrauterine pregnancy: a realistic perspective. Fertil Steril 28:407, 1977

47. Bhiwandiwala PP: Long-term effects of female sterilization on menstrual patterns. In: Sciarra JJ, (ed): Gynecology and Obstetrics. Vol 6, Chap 45:Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000

48. Radwanska E, Berger GS, Hammond J: Luteal deficiency among women with normal menstrual cycles, requesting reversal of tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 54:189, 1979

49. Westhoff C, Davis A: Tubal sterilization: Focus on the US experience. Fertil Steril 73:913, 2000

50. Gentile GP, Kaufman SC, Helbig DW: Is there any evidence for a post-tubal sterilization syndrome? Fertil Steril 69:179, 1998

51. Wilcox LS, Martinez-Schnell B, Peterson HB et al: Menstrual function after tubal sterilization. Am J Epidemiol 135:1368, 1992

52. Madrigal V, Edelman DA, Goldsmith A et al: Female sterilization via laparoscopy: a long-term followup study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 13:268, 1975

53. Muldoon MJ: Gynaecological illness after sterilization. BMJ 1:84, 1972

54. Neil JR, Hammond GT, Noble AD et al: Late complications of sterilisation by laparoscopy and tubal ligation. A controlled study Lancet 2:699, 1975

55. Chamberlain G, Foulkes J: Long term effects of laparoscopic sterilization on menstruation. South Med J 69:1474, 1976

56. Foulkes J, Chamberlain G: Effects of sterilization on menstruation. South Med J 78:544, 1985

57. Rulin MC, Davidson AR, Philliber SG et al: Changes in menstrual symptoms among sterilized and comparison women: A prospective study. Obstet Gynecol 74:149, 1989

58. Thranov I, Hertz JB, Kjer JJ et al: Hormonal and menstrual changes after laparoscopic sterilization by Falope-rings or Filshie-clips. Fertil Steril 57:751, 1992

59. Shain RN, Miller WB, Mitchell GW et al: Menstrual pattern change one year after sterilization: Results of a controlled, prospective study. Fertil Steril 52:192, 1989

60. Sahwi S, Toppozada M, Ikamel M: Changes in menstrual blood loss after four methods of female tubal sterilization. Contraception 40:387, 1989

61. Shy KK, Stergachis A, Grothaus LG et al: Tubal sterilization and risk of subsequent hospital admission for menstrual disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:1698, 1992

62. Rivera R, Gaitan JR, Ruiz R et al: Menstrual patterns and progesterone circulating levels following different procedures of tubal occlusion. Contraception 40:157, 1989

63. Rulin MC, Davidson AR, Philliber SG et al: Long-term effect of tubal sterilization on menstrual indices and pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol 82:118, 1993

64. Wilcox LS, Martinez-Schnell B, Peterson HB et al: Menstrual function after tubal sterilization. Am J Epidemiol 135:368, 1992

65. DeStefano F, Perlman JA, Peterson HB et al: Long-term risk of menstrual disturbances after tubal sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 152:835, 1985

66. Kasonde JM, Bonnar J: Effect of sterilization on menstrual blood loss. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 83:572, 1976

67. Peterson HB, Jeng G, Folger SG et al: The risk of menstrual abnormalities after tubal sterilization. N Engl J Med 343:1681-1687, 2000

68. Cohen MM: Long-term risk of hysterectomy after tubal sterilization. Am J Epidemiol 125:410, 1987

69. Goldhaber MK, Armstrong MA, Golditch IM et al: Long-term risk of hysterectomy among 80,007 sterilized and comparison women at Kaiser Permanente. Am J Epidemiol 138:508, 1993

70. Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Taylor LR et al: Higher hysterectomy risk for sterilized than nonsterilized women: Findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 91:241, 1998

71. Stergachis A, Kirkwood K, Shy KK et al: Tubal sterilization and the long-term risk of hysterectomy. JAMA 264:2893, 1990

72. Templeton AA, Cole S: Hysterectomy following sterilization. Br J Obstet Gynecol 89:845, 1982

73. Chi IC: Is tubal sterilization associated with an increased risk of subsequent hysterectomy but a decreased risk of ovarian cancer? A review of recent literature Adv Contracept 12:77, 1996

74. Santow G, Bracher M: Long-term risk of hysterectomy among 80,007 sterilized and comparison women at Kaiser Permanente [letter]. Am J Epidemiol 140:661, 1994

75. Townsend DE, McCausland V, McCausland A et al: Post-ablation tubal sterilization syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 82:422-424, 1993

76. Webb JC, Bush MR, Wood MD et al: Hematosalpinx with pelvic pain after endometrial ablation confirms the postablation-tubal sterilization syndrome. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 3:419-421, 1996

77. Bae IH, Pagedas AC, Perkins HE et al: Postablation-tubal sterilization syndrome. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 3:435-438, 1996

78. Mall A, Shirk G, Van Voorhis BJ: Previous tubal ligation is a risk factor for hysterectomy after rollerball endometrial ablation. Obsstet Gynecol 100:659-664, 2002

79. Irwin KL, Lee NC, Peterson HB et al: Hysterectomy, tubal sterilization, and the risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 127:1192, 1988

80. Castellsague X, Thompson WD, Dubrow R: Tubal sterilization and the risk of endometrial cancer. Int J Cancer 65:607, 1996

81. Kelsey JL, Livolsi VA, Holford TR et al: A case-control study of cancer of the endometrium. Am J Epidemiol 116:333, 1982

82. Fox KM, Cummings SR: Is tubal ligation a risk factor for low bone density and increased risk of fracture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172:101, 1995

83. Booth M, Beral V, Smith P: Risk factors for ovarian cancer: A case-control study. Br J Cancer 60:592, 1989

84. Greene A, Purdie D, Bain C et al: Tubal sterilisation, hysterectomy and decreased risk of ovarian cancer. Survey of Women's Health Study Group Int J Cancer 71:948, 1997

85. Grimes DA, Economy KE: Primary prevention of gynecologic cancers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172:227, 1995

86. Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA et al: Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, and risk of ovarian cancer. A prospective study J Am Med Assoc 270:2813, 1993

87. Hartge P, Schiffman MH, Hoover R et al: A case-control study of epithelial ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 161:10, 1989

88. Irwin KL, Weiss NS, Lee NC: Tubal sterilization, hysterectomy, and the subsequent occurrence of epithelial ovarian cancer. Am J Epidemiol 134:362, 1991

89. Koch M, Jenkins H, Gaedke H: Risk factors of ovarian cancer of epithelial origin: A case-control study. Cancer Detect Prev 13:131, 1988

90. Shu XO, Brinton LA, Gao YT et al: Population-based case-control study of ovarian cancer in Shanghai. Cancer Res 49:3670, 1989

91. Silver ALS: Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, and risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA 271:1235, 1994

92. Droegemueller W, Herbst AL, Mishell DR Jr, et al (eds): Upper genital tract infections. Comprehensive Gynecology. p 615, Vol 3:St Louis, CV Mosby, 1987

93. Green MM, Vicario SJ, Sanfilippo JS. et al: Acute pelvic inflammatory disease after surgical sterilization. Ann Emerg Med 20:344, 1991

94. Haji SN: Does sterilization prevent pelvic infection. J Reprod Med 20:289, 1978

95. Poma PA: Tubal sterilization and later hospitalizations. J Reprod Med 25:272, 1980

96. Phillips AJ, d'Ablaing G: Acute salpingitis subsequent to tubal ligation. Obstet Gynecol 67:55S, 1986

97. Reedy MB, Galan HL, Patterson KM: Acute pelvic inflammatory disease after tubal sterilization: A report of three cases. J Reprod Med 39:752, 1994

98. Weeks AG, Entman SS: Gonococcal peritonitis after tubal ligation: A case report. J Reprod Med 36:683, 1991

99. Alder E, Cook A, Gray J et al: The effects of sterilization: A comparison of sterilized women with the wives of vasectomized men. Contraception 23:45, 1981

100. Baggish MS, Lee WK, Miro SJ et al: Complications of laparoscopic tubal sterilization: comparison of 2 methods. Obstet Gynecol 54:54, 1979

101. Bean FD, Clark MP, South S et al: Changes in sexual desire after voluntary sterilization. Soc Biol 27:186, 1980

102. Shain RN, Miller WB, Holden AE et al: Impact of tubal sterilization and vasectomy on female marital sexuality: Results of a controlled longitudinal study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 164:763, 1991

103. Cooper JE, Bledin KD, Brice B et al: Effects of female sterilization: one year follow-up in a prospective controlled study of psychological and psychiatric outcome. J Psychosom Res 129:13, 1985

104. Kjer J: Sexual adjustment to tubal sterilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol 35:211, 1990

105. Shain RN, Miller WB, Shepard MK et al: Cultural dimensions in obstetrics, gynecology and neonatology. In: Shinkin DB, Golde P, (eds): Anthropology and Health Services in American Society. p 47, Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 1983

106. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV-risk behaviors of sterilized and non-sterilized women in drug treatment programs. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 41:149, 1992

107. US Centers for Disease Control: Surgical sterilization among women and use of condoms--Baltimore, 1989–1990. Centers for Disease Control JAMA 268:1833, 1992

108. Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Poindexter AN 3rd: Planned condom use among women undergoing tubal sterilization. Sex Transm Dis 335-341, 1998