Pressure dynamics in the non-gravid uterus: Intrauterine pressure cannot confirm tubal occlusion after non-surgical permanent contraception

Eva Patil, Amy Thurmond, Alison Edelman, Rongwei (Rochelle) Fu, William Lambert, Jacqueline Seguin, Jeffrey Jensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The objective was to determine if intrauterine pressure can distinguish bilateral tubal occlusion (BTO) from unilateral or bilateral tubal patency (TP) in women following a permanent contraception procedure. Study design: We used a small inline pressure sensor to continuously monitor intrauterine pressure during hysterosalpingogram (HSG) in a cross-sectional study that enrolled women having HSGs for any indication. The primary outcome was the peak intrauterine pressure compared between women with BTO and TP as verified by HSG. Results: We enrolled 150 subjects, of which 111 (74.0%) provided usable pressure readings. Of these, 98/111 (88.3%) had TP, and 13 (11.7%) had BTO. There was no difference in peak intrauterine pressure for subjects with TP (mean 293.8±58.7 mmHg) compared to those with BTO (292.7±71.3 mmHg, p=.95). Among parous women, peak intrauterine pressure in subjects with BTO (311.9±78.0 mmHg) was higher but not significantly different from subjects with TP (282.7±49.2 mmHg, p=.20). In linear regression analysis, peak intrauterine pressure was not associated with age, body mass index, gravidity or having at least one prior live birth. Conclusions: Measurement of peak intrauterine pressure does not distinguish between women with patent and blocked fallopian tubes. This approach would not be clinically useful to verify occlusion following permanent contraception. Implications: Peak intrauterine pressure does not differ between women with patent and occluded fallopian tubes and cannot be used to confirm tubal occlusion after nonsurgical permanent contraception.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalContraception
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Tubal Sterilization
Contraception
Uterus
Pressure
Fallopian Tubes
Gravidity
Live Birth
Reading
Linear Models
Body Mass Index
Cross-Sectional Studies
Regression Analysis

Keywords

  • Intrauterine pressure
  • Nonsurgical permanent contraception
  • Sterilization
  • Tubal occlusion verification

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

@article{ab3b44d6f37841d18d1dc2a718e76a74,
title = "Pressure dynamics in the non-gravid uterus: Intrauterine pressure cannot confirm tubal occlusion after non-surgical permanent contraception",
abstract = "Objective: The objective was to determine if intrauterine pressure can distinguish bilateral tubal occlusion (BTO) from unilateral or bilateral tubal patency (TP) in women following a permanent contraception procedure. Study design: We used a small inline pressure sensor to continuously monitor intrauterine pressure during hysterosalpingogram (HSG) in a cross-sectional study that enrolled women having HSGs for any indication. The primary outcome was the peak intrauterine pressure compared between women with BTO and TP as verified by HSG. Results: We enrolled 150 subjects, of which 111 (74.0{\%}) provided usable pressure readings. Of these, 98/111 (88.3{\%}) had TP, and 13 (11.7{\%}) had BTO. There was no difference in peak intrauterine pressure for subjects with TP (mean 293.8±58.7 mmHg) compared to those with BTO (292.7±71.3 mmHg, p=.95). Among parous women, peak intrauterine pressure in subjects with BTO (311.9±78.0 mmHg) was higher but not significantly different from subjects with TP (282.7±49.2 mmHg, p=.20). In linear regression analysis, peak intrauterine pressure was not associated with age, body mass index, gravidity or having at least one prior live birth. Conclusions: Measurement of peak intrauterine pressure does not distinguish between women with patent and blocked fallopian tubes. This approach would not be clinically useful to verify occlusion following permanent contraception. Implications: Peak intrauterine pressure does not differ between women with patent and occluded fallopian tubes and cannot be used to confirm tubal occlusion after nonsurgical permanent contraception.",
keywords = "Intrauterine pressure, Nonsurgical permanent contraception, Sterilization, Tubal occlusion verification",
author = "Eva Patil and Amy Thurmond and Alison Edelman and Fu, {Rongwei (Rochelle)} and William Lambert and Jacqueline Seguin and Jeffrey Jensen",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.contraception.2017.06.013",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Contraception",
issn = "0010-7824",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pressure dynamics in the non-gravid uterus

T2 - Intrauterine pressure cannot confirm tubal occlusion after non-surgical permanent contraception

AU - Patil, Eva

AU - Thurmond, Amy

AU - Edelman, Alison

AU - Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle)

AU - Lambert, William

AU - Seguin, Jacqueline

AU - Jensen, Jeffrey

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Objective: The objective was to determine if intrauterine pressure can distinguish bilateral tubal occlusion (BTO) from unilateral or bilateral tubal patency (TP) in women following a permanent contraception procedure. Study design: We used a small inline pressure sensor to continuously monitor intrauterine pressure during hysterosalpingogram (HSG) in a cross-sectional study that enrolled women having HSGs for any indication. The primary outcome was the peak intrauterine pressure compared between women with BTO and TP as verified by HSG. Results: We enrolled 150 subjects, of which 111 (74.0%) provided usable pressure readings. Of these, 98/111 (88.3%) had TP, and 13 (11.7%) had BTO. There was no difference in peak intrauterine pressure for subjects with TP (mean 293.8±58.7 mmHg) compared to those with BTO (292.7±71.3 mmHg, p=.95). Among parous women, peak intrauterine pressure in subjects with BTO (311.9±78.0 mmHg) was higher but not significantly different from subjects with TP (282.7±49.2 mmHg, p=.20). In linear regression analysis, peak intrauterine pressure was not associated with age, body mass index, gravidity or having at least one prior live birth. Conclusions: Measurement of peak intrauterine pressure does not distinguish between women with patent and blocked fallopian tubes. This approach would not be clinically useful to verify occlusion following permanent contraception. Implications: Peak intrauterine pressure does not differ between women with patent and occluded fallopian tubes and cannot be used to confirm tubal occlusion after nonsurgical permanent contraception.

AB - Objective: The objective was to determine if intrauterine pressure can distinguish bilateral tubal occlusion (BTO) from unilateral or bilateral tubal patency (TP) in women following a permanent contraception procedure. Study design: We used a small inline pressure sensor to continuously monitor intrauterine pressure during hysterosalpingogram (HSG) in a cross-sectional study that enrolled women having HSGs for any indication. The primary outcome was the peak intrauterine pressure compared between women with BTO and TP as verified by HSG. Results: We enrolled 150 subjects, of which 111 (74.0%) provided usable pressure readings. Of these, 98/111 (88.3%) had TP, and 13 (11.7%) had BTO. There was no difference in peak intrauterine pressure for subjects with TP (mean 293.8±58.7 mmHg) compared to those with BTO (292.7±71.3 mmHg, p=.95). Among parous women, peak intrauterine pressure in subjects with BTO (311.9±78.0 mmHg) was higher but not significantly different from subjects with TP (282.7±49.2 mmHg, p=.20). In linear regression analysis, peak intrauterine pressure was not associated with age, body mass index, gravidity or having at least one prior live birth. Conclusions: Measurement of peak intrauterine pressure does not distinguish between women with patent and blocked fallopian tubes. This approach would not be clinically useful to verify occlusion following permanent contraception. Implications: Peak intrauterine pressure does not differ between women with patent and occluded fallopian tubes and cannot be used to confirm tubal occlusion after nonsurgical permanent contraception.

KW - Intrauterine pressure

KW - Nonsurgical permanent contraception

KW - Sterilization

KW - Tubal occlusion verification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85023608624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85023608624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.06.013

DO - 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.06.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 28687179

AN - SCOPUS:85023608624

JO - Contraception

JF - Contraception

SN - 0010-7824

ER -