BACKGROUND

Hysteroscopic sterilization is a minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopic tubal ligation for women who want permanent contraception. In contrast to the laparoscopic technique, a hysteroscope is used to pass permanent microinserts through the cervix and place them in the fallopian tubes. This procedure does not require local or general anesthesia and can be performed in an office setting.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this analysis was to determine, based on published literature, the cost-effectiveness of hysteroscopic tubal sterilization (HS) compared with laparoscopic tubal ligation (LS) for permanent female sterilization.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between January 1, 2008, and December 11, 2012.

REVIEW METHODS

Potentially relevant studies were identified based on the title and abstract. Cost-utility analyses (studies that report outcomes in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life-years) were prioritized for inclusion. When not available, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-consequence analyses were considered. Costing studies were considered in the absence of all other analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 33 abstracts were identified. Three cost analyses were included. A retrospective chart review from Canada found that HS was $111 less costly than LS; a prospective activity-based cost management study from Italy reported that it was €337 less costly than LS; and the results of an American decision model showed that HS was $1,178 less costly than LS.

LIMITATIONS

All studies had limited applicability to the Ontario health care system due to differences in setting, resource use, and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Three cost analyses found that, although the HS procedure was more expensive due to the cost of the microinserts, HS was less costly than LS overall due to the shorter recovery time required.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Hysteroscopic sterilization is a minimally invasive alternative to conventional tubal ligation for women who want a permanent method of contraception. Both approaches involve closing off the fallopian tubes, preventing the egg from moving down the tube and the sperm from reaching the egg. Tubal ligation is a surgical procedure to tie or seal the fallopian tubes, and it usually requires general anesthesia. In contrast, hysteroscopic tubal sterilization can be performed in 10 minutes in an office setting without general or even local anesthesia. A tiny device called a microinsert is inserted into each fallopian tube through the vagina, cervix, and uterus without surgery. An instrument called a hysteroscope allows the doctor to see inside the body for the procedure. Once the microinserts are in place, scar tissue forms around them and blocks the fallopian tubes. Health Quality Ontario commissioned a systematic review of published economic literature to determine whether hysteroscopic sterilization is cost-effective compared to tubal ligation. This review did not find any studies that reported results in terms of both costs and effectiveness or costs and quality-adjusted life-years. We did find 3 costing studies and included them in our review. All of these studies found that when hysteroscopic sterilization was performed as an outpatient procedure, it was less expensive than tubal ligation due to a shorter recovery time. However, none of the studies apply directly to Ontario because of differences in our health care system compared to those in the studies.