Clinical analysis of post sterilization failure cases in a tertiary hospital

  • Rathod S
  • Samal S
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The most common permanent method of family planning accepted in India is female tubal sterilization as it has a very low failure rate of 0.1-0.8% in the first year and overall pregnancy chances of 1 in 200. It can be done by open method but laparoscopic method has now gained wide popularity.Methods: Ours was a retrospective study of post sterilization failure cases admitted to Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mahatma Gandhi medical College and Research Institute, Pondicherry within a 3 year time period between May 2014 to May 2017.Results: Within a 3 year period, 3 patients presented with intrauterine pregnancy whereas 28 presented as ectopic pregnancy following sterilization. Majority of patients belonged to 26-30 year age group and had 2 children. 35.7% of ectopics presented at 7-8 weeks gestational age. Over 70% of sterilization failures were done by open method and around 43% were done during caesarean section. Around 71.4% sterilization failures were seen within 5 years of sterilization but 1 patient presented as late as 17 years post sterilization.Conclusions: Female sterilization may result in failure even after years of sterilization. In present study, open sterilization had a higher failure rate than laparoscopic sterilization. The most common mode of sterilization failure was ectopic pregnancy. Therefore, patients undergoing sterilization must be counseled about chances of failure; even though it is a permanent method, and to consult immediately if missed period else at a later stage they may go in for rupture ectopic leading to high maternal morbidity and mortality.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rathod, S., & Samal, S. K. (2017). Clinical analysis of post sterilization failure cases in a tertiary hospital. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 6(8), 3294. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20173084

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free