Risk of Essure microinsert abdominal migration: case report and review of literature

Purpose To report a case of Essure microinsert abdominal migration and literature review. Methods A 41-year-old woman was counseled to undergo Essure sterilization. The procedure was hampered by the presence of endometrial cavity adhesions, obscuring left tubal ostium. By using microscissors the adhesions were progressively lysed. Since the procedure had become very painful, the patient required general anesthesia. Once adhesion lysis was completed, the tubal ostium was well visible. Both devices were then easily introduced into the fallopian tubes. At the end of the procedure, five coils were visible on the right side and five coils on the left side, as recommended. Results The 3-month hysterosalpingogram follow-up suspected abdominal migration of the left device. Laparoscopy confirmed the device displacement in the left lower abdominal quadrant. Both fallopian tubes and the uterus appeared normal. No signs of perforation were detected. The device was embedded into the omentum, but it was easily removed. Bilateral tubal sterilization was performed by bipolar coagulation. Conclusion There are only 13 cases, including the present, of Essure abdominal migration in the literature. In most cases, abdominal displacement of the microinsert is asymptomatic and does not induce tissue damage. However, in some cases, it may cause a severe adverse event, requiring major surgery. Therefore, removal of the migrated device should be performed as soon as possible. Moreover, during presterilization counseling, the patient should also be correctly informed about the risk of this rare but relevant complication, as well as about the surgical interventions that could be required to solve it.

[1]  L. Swaim,et al.  Hysteroscopic sterilization in the office setting. , 2013, Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America.

[2]  M. Diamond,et al.  Analysis of adverse events with Essure hysteroscopic sterilization reported to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database. , 2013, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[3]  D. Howard,et al.  Use of intraoperative fluoroscopy during laparotomy to identify fragments of retained Essure microinserts: case report. , 2012, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[4]  C. Castelo-Branco,et al.  Complications of hysteroscopic Essure® sterilisation: report on 4306 procedures performed in a single centre , 2012, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[5]  M. Diamond,et al.  Small bowel obstruction subsequent to Essure microinsert sterilization: a case report. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[6]  M. Hopkins,et al.  Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of the Essure™ procedure , 2011, Patient preference and adherence.

[7]  F. Nestle,et al.  Increased metal allergy in patients with failed metal‐on‐metal hip arthroplasty and peri‐implant T‐lymphocytic inflammation , 2009, Allergy.

[8]  H. Brölmann,et al.  Incorrect position of Essure microinserts 3 months after successful bilateral placement. , 2009, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  Ted Lee,et al.  Laparoscopic management of hysteroscopic essure sterilization complications: report of 3 cases. , 2008, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[10]  M. Connor,et al.  The Essure™ hysteroscopic sterilisation procedure: initial experience in Sheffield, UK , 2006, Gynecological Surgery.

[11]  D. Cher,et al.  Hysteroscopic sterilization using a micro-insert device: results of a multicentre Phase II study. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[12]  J. Wijma,et al.  Small bowel obstruction and perforation after Essure sterilization: a case report. , 2013, Contraception.

[13]  M. Hopkins,et al.  Efficacy , safety , and patient acceptability of the essure TM procedure , 2011 .