BACKGROUND Despite increasing contraceptive availability, unintended pregnancy remains a global problem, representing as many as 30% of all known pregnancies. Various strategies have been proposed to reverse this disturbing trend, especially increased use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods. In this review we aim to discuss the role of LARC methods and importance of contraceptive counseling in reducing unintended pregnancy rates. METHODS References/resources cited were identified based on searches of medical literature (MEDLINE, 1990-2009), bibliographies of relevant publications and the Internet. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS LARC methods-copper intrauterine devices (IUDs), progestogen-releasing intrauterine system and injectable and implantable contraceptives-are safe and effective contraceptive options (unintended pregnancy rates with typical versus perfect use: 0.05-3.0 versus 0.05-0.6%) that are appropriate for a wide range of women seeking to limit or space childbearing. Despite their safety and efficacy records, these methods remain underutilized; injectable and implantable methods are used by an estimated 3.4% and intrauterine methods by 15.5% of women worldwide. LARC methods require no daily or coital adherence and avoid the adverse events and health risks of estrogen-containing contraceptives. The copper IUD and progestin-only injections and implants have been shown to be more cost-effective than more commonly used methods, such as condoms and the pill (5-year savings: $13,373-$14,122, LARC; $12,239, condoms; $12,879, pill). Women who are considering use of LARC methods should receive comprehensive contraceptive counseling, as women who receive counseling before use demonstrate higher rates of after-use method satisfaction, continuation and acceptance than those who do not.

Strategies to prevent unintended pregnancy: increasing use of long-acting reversible contraception

This report presents the recommendations of the WHO Expert Committee responsible for updating the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines. It contains a summary of the Committee's considerations and justifications for additions and changes to the Model Lists, including its recommendations. Annexes to the main report include the revised version of the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (18th edition) and the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (4th edition). In addition there is a list of all the items on the Model Lists sorted according to their Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification codes.

The selection and use of essential medicines.

Increasing life expectancies paired with age-related comorbidities have resulted in the continued growth of the elderly surgical population. In this group, age-associated changes and decreased physiological reserve impede the body’s ability to maintain homeostasis during times of physiological stress, with a subsequent decrease in physiological reserve. This can lead to age-related physiological and cognitive dysfunction resulting in perioperative complications. Changes in the cardiovascular, pulmonary, nervous, hepatorenal, endocrine, skin, and soft tissue systems are discussed as they are connected to the perioperative experience. Alterations affect both the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of administered drugs. Elderly patients with coexisting diseases are at a greater risk for polypharmacy that can further complicate anesthetic management. Consequently, the importance of conducting a focused preoperative evaluation and identifying potential risk factors is strongly emphasized. Efforts to maintain intraoperative normothermia have been shown to be of great importance. Procedures to maintain stable body temperature throughout the perioperative period are presented. The choice of anesthetic technique, in regard to a regional versus general anesthetic approach, is debated widely in the literature. The type of anesthesia to be administered should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with special consideration given to the health status of the patient, the type of operation being conducted, and the expertise of the anesthesiologist. Specifically addressed in this article are age-related cognitive issues such as postoperative cognitive dysfunction and postoperative delirium. Strategies are suggested for avoiding these pitfalls.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2151458510394606

Unique Aspects of the Elderly Surgical Population: An Anesthesiologist's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Implantable methods of contraception offer long-acting reversible contraception. Their uptake rate in comparison to other contraceptive methods, particularly in developed countries, has historically been low. OBJECTIVES: To assess the contraceptive effectiveness, tolerability and acceptability of subdermal implants in comparison to other reversible contraceptive methods. SEARCH STRATEGY: Literature were identified through database searches, reference lists and individuals/organisations working in the contraceptive field. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and controlled trials comparing subdermal implants with other forms of reversible contraceptives and reporting on pre-determined outcomes in women of reproductive years. Primary outcomes were pregnancy and continuation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Quality assessment of studies and data extraction were completed independently by two reviewers. A quality checklist was designed to identify general methodological and contraceptive specific factors. Study authors and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to provide additional data.Data were collected on pregnancy rates, continuation, side effects and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: All nine identified trials compared different types of contraceptive implant. Eight, involving 1578 women, compared Implanon with Norplant , and one, involving 1198 women, compared Jadelle with Norplant. There was no difference between Implanon and Norplant for contraceptive effectiveness rates or continuation over 4 years. Both were highly effective methods of contraception with no pregnancies occurring in any of the trials during 26,972 and 28,108 women months of follow up respectively. The most common side-effect with Implanon and Norplant was changes in bleeding pattern. The pattern with Implanon was initially more variable, bleeding with both implants became less frequent with duration of use. After two years use the amenorrhoea rate was significantly higher with Implanon. The trials reported no significant difference in hormonal side-effects or adverse events. Implanon was significantly quicker to insert and remove than Norplant. There was no difference in contraceptive effectiveness and in continuation rates between Jadelle and Norplant. Jadelle was significantly quicker to remove than Norplant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implanon, Norplant and Jadelle are highly effective contraceptive methods. No significant differences were found in contraceptive effectiveness or continuation. The most common side-effect with all implants was unpredictable vaginal bleeding. Time taken for removal of Implanon and Jadelle was less than that for Norplant.Although this systematic review was unable to provide a definitive answer on relative effectiveness, tolerability and acceptability of contraceptive implants in comparison to other contraceptive methods, it has raised issues around the conduct of contraceptive research.

/pdf/subdermal-implantable-contraceptives-versus-other-forms-of-1vuvpaidkp.pdf

Subdermal implantable contraceptives versus other forms of reversible contraceptives or other implants as effective methods for preventing pregnancy

Background
This is an update of a review that was first published in 2002. Female sterilisation is the most popular contraceptive method worldwide. Several techniques exist for interrupting the patency of fallopian tubes, including cutting and tying the tubes, damaging the tube using electric current, applying clips or silicone rubber rings, and blocking the tubes with chemicals or tubal inserts.

Objectives
To compare the different tubal occlusion techniques in terms of major and minor morbidity, failure rates (pregnancies), technical failures and difficulties, and women's and surgeons' satisfaction.

Search methods
For the original review published in 2002 we searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). For this 2015 update, we searched POPLINE, LILACS, PubMed and CENTRAL on 23 July 2015. We used the related articles feature of PubMed and searched reference lists of newly identified trials.

Selection criteria
All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different techniques for tubal sterilisation, irrespective of the route of fallopian tube access or the method of anaesthesia.

Data collection and analysis
For the original review, two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For this update, data extraction was performed by one author (TL) and checked by another (RK). We grouped trials according to the type of comparison evaluated. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) using fixed-effect methods, unless heterogeneity was high, in which case we used random-effects methods.

Main results
We included 19 RCTs involving 13,209 women. Most studies concerned interval sterilisation; three RCTs involving 1632 women, concerned postpartum sterilisation. Comparisons included tubal rings versus clips (six RCTs, 4232 women); partial salpingectomy versus electrocoagulation (three RCTs, 2019 women); tubal rings versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 599 women); partial salpingectomy versus clips (four RCTs, 3627 women); clips versus electrocoagulation (two RCTs, 206 women); and Hulka versus Filshie clips (two RCTs, 2326 women). RCTs of clips versus electrocoagulation contributed no data to the review.

One year after sterilisation, failure rates were low (< 5/1000) for all methods.There were no deaths reported with any method, and major morbidity related to the occlusion technique was rare.

Minor morbidity was higher with the tubal ring than the clip (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.78; participants = 842; studies = 2; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence), as were technical failures (Peto OR 3.93, 95% CI 2.43 to 6.35; participants = 3476; studies = 3; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence).

Major morbidity was significantly higher with the modified Pomeroy technique than electrocoagulation (Peto OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 7.25; participants = 1905; studies = 2; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), as was postoperative pain (Peto OR 3.85, 95% CI 2.91 to 5.10; participants = 1905; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).

When tubal rings were compared with electrocoagulation, postoperative pain was reported significantly more frequently for tubal rings (OR 3.40, 95% CI 1.17 to 9.84; participants = 596; studies = 2; I² = 87%; low-quality evidence).

When partial salpingectomy was compared with clips, there were no major morbidity events in either group (participants = 2198, studies = 1). The frequency of minor morbidity was low and not significantly different between groups (Peto OR 7.39, 95% CI 0.46 to 119.01; participants = 193; studies = 1, low-quality evidence). Although technical failure occurred more frequently with clips (Peto OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40; participants = 2198; studies = 1; moderate-quality evidence); operative time was shorter with clips than partial salpingectomy (MD 4.26 minutes, 95% CI 3.65 to 4.86; participants = 2223; studies = 2; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence).

We found little evidence concerning women's or surgeon's satisfaction. No RCTs compared tubal microinserts (hysteroscopic sterilisation) or chemical inserts (quinacrine) to other methods.

Authors' conclusions
Tubal sterilisation by partial salpingectomy, electrocoagulation, or using clips or rings, is a safe and effective method of contraception. Failure rates at 12 months post-sterilisation and major morbidity are rare outcomes with any of these techniques. Minor complications and technical failures appear to be more common with rings than clips. Electrocoagulation may be associated with less postoperative pain than the modified Pomeroy or tubal ring methods. Further research should include RCTs (for effectiveness) and controlled observational studies (for adverse effects) on sterilisation by minimally-invasive methods, i.e. tubal inserts and quinacrine.

Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation

OBJECTIVES: To assess the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs) in comparison to other reversible contraceptive methods. SEARCH STRATEGY: Literature was identified through database searches, reference lists and individuals/organisations working in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing IUSs with other forms of reversible contraceptives and reporting on pre-determined outcomes in women of reproductive years. The primary outcomes were pregnancy due to method/user failure and continuation rate. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The quality assessment of studies and data extraction were completed independently by two blinded reviewers. A quality checklist was designed to identify general methodological and contraceptive specific factors which could bias results. Events per women months and single decrement life table rates were extracted where possible for pregnancy, continuation, adverse events and reasons for discontinuation. Events per total number of women at follow up were collected for hormonal side effects and menstrual disturbance. When appropriate, data were pooled at the same points of follow up to calculate rate ratios in order to determine the relative effectiveness of one method compared to another. For the single decrement life table rates, the rate differences were pooled to determine the absolute difference in effectiveness of one method compared to another. Interventions were only combined if the contraceptive methods were similar. Non-hormonal IUDs were divided into three categories for the purpose of comparison with IUSs: IUDs >250mm2 (i.e. CuT 380A IUD and CuT 380 Ag IUD), IUDs 250mm2 users. However, women using the LNG-20 IUS were significantly less likely to become pregnant than those using the IUD 250mm2. LNG-20 users were significantly more likely than all the IUD users to discontinue because of hormonal side effects and menstrual disturbance, which on further breakdown of the data was due to amenorrhoea. When the LNG-20 IUS was compared to Norplant-2, the LNG-20 users were significantly more likely to experience amenorrhoea and oligomenorrhoea, but significantly less likely to experience prolonged bleeding and spotting. No other significant differences were observed. Progestasert users were significantly less likely to become pregnant and less likely to continue on the method than non-medicated IUD users after one year, but no significant differences was noted for these two outcomes when Progestasert users were compared to IUD 250mm2 and Norplant-2 users. The LNG-20 IUS was more effective in preventing either intrauterine or extrauterine pregnancies than IUDs <=250mm2. The contraceptive effectiveness of Progestasert was significantly better than non-medicated IUDs, but no difference was observed when compared to IUDs<=250mm2. Continuation of LNG-20 IUS use was similar to continuation of the non-hormonal IUDs and Norplant-2. Amenorrhoea was the main reason for the discontinuation for the LNG-20 IUS and women should be informed of this prior to starting this method.

/pdf/hormonally-impregnated-intrauterine-systems-iuss-versus-2ahcgbtktl.pdf

Hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs), versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy.

Subdermal implantable contraceptives versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

T Proctor

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs), versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy.

Subdermal implantable contraceptives versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy.