Tubal sterilization during cesarean section or as an elective procedure? Effect on the ovarian reserve



      The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of tubal sterilization on the ovarian reserve by means of hormonal and ultrasonographic evaluation during a cesarean section or when performed as a planned interval procedure.

      Study Design

      Fifty women who had undergone tubal sterilization during a cesarean section (n=24) and by minilaparotomy as an elective procedure (n=26) were included in the study. Tubes were ligated with the Pomeroy technique in both groups. The women who had chosen to use barrier method or intrauterine device for contraception (n=30) constituted the control group. Among the women in the control group, two separate control groups were constituted (control 1 and control 2) who were age matched with the women in each study group. Hormone levels including antim��llerian hormone (AMH) and inhibin B and ultrasonographic evaluations were performed on the third day of the menstrual cycle 1 year after the tubal sterilization procedure.


      Mean blood estradiol, follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone levels on the third day of the cycle postoperative 12 months after the surgical intervention did not show any significant differences in the groups with respect to their age-matched controls. There was no significant difference in terms of mean serum AMH and inhibin B levels between the groups and their age-matched controls. However, significantly higher postoperative levels of mean AMH levels were detected in the tubal sterilization during cesarean section group when compared with the minilaparotomy group, and significantly lower postoperative levels of mean inhibin B were detected in the elective tubal sterilization via minilaparotomy group when compared with the cesarean section group. Statistically significant differences were observed in terms of number of antral follicles and mean ovarian volumes being less in the elective tubal sterilization via minilaparotomy group when compared with age-matched controls.


      Intraoperative cesarean section tubal sterilization seems to be a practical and safe method, and has less effect on the ovarian reserve when compared with planned tubal sterilization by minilaparotomy.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Goynumer G.
        • Kayabasoglu F.
        • Aydogdu S.
        • Wetherilt L.
        The effect of tubal sterilization through electrocoagulation on the ovarian reserve.
        Contraception. 2009; 80: 90-94
        • Bhiwandiwala P.P.
        • Mumford S.D.
        • Feldblum P.J.
        A comparison of different laparoscopic techniques in 24439 procedures.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982; 144: 319-331
        • United Nations
        World population monitoring.
        United Nations, New York2002
        • Zurawin R.K.
        • Sklar A.J.
        Tubal sterilization. 2006
      1. Demographic and health surveys program.
        • Lawrie T.A.
        • Nardin J.M.
        • Kulier R.
        • Boulvain M.
        Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (Review): CD003034
        • Gentile G.P.
        • Kaufman S.C.
        • Helbig D.W.
        Is there any evidence for a post-tubal sterilization syndrome?.
        Fertil Steril. 1998; 69: 179-186
        • Cattanach J.F.
        • Milne B.J.
        Post-tubal sterilization problems correlated with ovarian steroidogenesis.
        Contraception. 1988; 38: 541-550
        • Cevrioglu A.S.
        • Degirmenci B.
        • Acar M.
        • et al.
        Examination of changes caused by tubal sterilization in ovarian hormone secretion and uterine and ovarian artery blood flow rates.
        Contraception. 2004; 70: 467-473
        • DeStefano F.
        • Perlman J.A.
        • Peterson H.B.
        • Diamond E.L.
        Long-term risk of menstrual disturbances after tubal sterilization.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 152: 835-841
        • Scott Jr, R.T.
        • Hofmann G.E.
        Prognostic assessment of ovarian reserve.
        Fertil Steril. 1995; 63 ([Review]): 1-11
        • Smotrich D.B.
        • Widra E.A.
        • Gindoff P.R.
        • Levy M.J.
        • Hall J.L.
        • Stillman R.J.
        Prognostic value of day 3 estradiol on in vitro fertilization outcome.
        Fertil Steril. 1995; 64: 1136-1140
        • Erdem A.
        • Erdem M.
        • Biberoglu K.
        • Hayit O.
        • Arslan M.
        • Gursoy R.
        Age-related changes in ovarian volume, antral follicle counts and basal FSH in women with normal reproductive health.
        J Reprod Med. 2002; 47: 835-839
        • Visser J.A.
        • de Jong F.H.
        • Laven J.S.
        • Themmen A.P.
        Anti-m��llerian hormone: a new marker for ovarian function.
        Reproduction. 2006; 131 ([Review]): 1-9
        • Riggs R.M.
        • Duran E.H.
        • Baker M.W.
        • et al.
        Assessment of ovarian reserve with anti-M��llerian hormone: a comparison of the predictive value of anti-m��llerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, and age.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 202.e1-202.e8
        • Welt C.K.
        • McNicholl D.J.
        • Taylor A.E.
        • Hall J.E.
        Female reproductive aging is marked by decreased secretion of dimeric inhibin.
        J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999; 84: 105-111
        • Shy K.K.
        • Stergachis A.
        • Grothaus L.G.
        • Wagner E.H.
        • Hecht J.
        • Anderson G.
        Tubal sterilization and risk of subsequent hospital admission for menstrual disorders.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166 (discussion 1705-6): 1698-1705
        • Poma P.A.
        Tubal sterilization and later hospitalizations.
        J Reprod Med. 1980; 25: 272-278
        • Cattanach J.
        Oestrogen deficiency after tubal ligation.
        Lancet. 1985; 1: 847-849
        • Fagundes M.L.
        • Mendes M.C.
        • Patta M.C.
        • et al.
        Hormonal assessment of women submitted to tubal ligation.
        Contraception. 2005; 71: 309-314
        • Alvarez F.
        • Faundes A.
        • Brache V.
        • Tejada A.S.
        • Segal S.
        Prospective study of the pituitary-ovarian function after tubal sterilization by the Pomeroy or Uchida techniques.
        Fertil Steril. 1989; 51: 604-608
        • Kuscu E.
        • Duran H.E.
        • Zeyneloglu H.B.
        • Demirhan B.
        • Bagis T.
        • Saygili E.
        The effect of surgical sterilization on ovarian function: a rat model.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002; 100: 204-207
        • Carmona F.
        • Crist��bal P.
        • Casamitjana R.
        • Balasch J.
        Effect of tubal sterilization on ovarian follicular reserve and function.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189: 447-452
        • S��rensen T.
        • Ladehoff P.
        • Lindholm P.
        • Qvist K.
        Follicular stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone and estrogen levels before and after female sterilization.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1981; 60: 559-561
        • Rojansky N.
        • Halbreich U.
        Prevalence and severity of premenstrual changes after tubal sterilization.
        J Reprod Med. 1991; 36: 551-555
        • Hargrove J.T.
        • Abraham G.E.
        Endocrine profile of patients with post-tubal-ligation syndrome.
        J Reprod Med. 1981; 26: 359-362
        • Hakverdi A.U.
        • Taner C.E.
        • Erden A.C.
        • Satici O.
        Changes in ovarian function after tubal sterilization.
        Adv Contracept. 1994; 10: 51-56
        • Gentile G.P.
        • Helbig D.W.
        • Zacur H.
        • Park T.
        • Lee Y.J.
        • Westhoff C.L.
        Hormone levels before and after tubal sterilization.
        Contraception. 2006; 73: 507-511
        • Kelekci S.
        • Yilmaz B.
        • Yakut Y.
        • Yasar L.
        • Savan K.
        • Sonmez S.
        Hormonal and ovarian stromal blood supply changes after laparoscopic tubal sterilization: a prospective controlled study.
        Contraception. 2006; 73: 279-283
        • Peterson H.B.
        • Jeng G.
        • Folger S.G.
        • Hillis S.A.
        • Marchbanks P.A.
        • Wilcox L.S.
        • U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group
        The risk of menstrual abnormalities after tubal sterilization. U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group.
        N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 1681-1687
        • Harlow B.L.
        • Missmer S.A.
        • Cramer D.W.
        • Barbieri R.L.
        Does tubal sterilization influence the subsequent risk of menorrhagia or dysmenorrhea?.
        Fertil Steril. 2002; 77: 754-760
        • Dede F.S.
        • Dilbaz B.
        • Akyuz O.
        • Caliskan E.
        • Kurtaran V.
        • Dilbaz S.
        Changes in menstrual pattern and ovarian function following bipolar electrocauterization of the fallopian tubes for voluntary surgical contraception.
        Contraception. 2006; 73: 88-91