Adiana Permanent Contraception

[NCfuncouple98]

Anyone familiar with this procedure?

I was on the Depo shot for 1-1/2 years, and the only side effect I had was weight gain. 15 pounds during that time! Needless to say, it's not anything I want to continue. I have also read not to stay on that shot after 2 years anyway, due to bone loss.

I am considering Adiana, and was wondering if anyone had any experience?

Mrs. NC

[prometheius]

I don't know anything about Adiana, but if permanent contrception is what you are wanting, why not get your tubes tied and be done with it? Is Adiana a non-invasive proceedure?

[NCfuncouple98]

Very non-invasive - office procedure that takes about 12 minutes!

Mr NC does not want me dealing with surgery if at all possible. We wanted my tubes tied when our daughter was born and the hospital wouldn't do it - wanted me to heal for 6 weeks and then come back again.... She is now 10 years old....

[bbarnsworth]

We recently considered this option. We rejected it. Our primary concerns were that this is a relatively new procedure, and though it is highly effective is it not as effective as tubal ligation. Given that it is a new procedure, there is still much to be learned. Approved as a medical procedure for humans does not mean safe. Tubal ligation on the other hand has been in use for a much, much longer period of time and the risk factors are better known.

A contributing factor that lead to our decision to seek permanent contraception for my wife was that her doctor had already recommended a Novasure procedure.

It's been six months since having the tubal ligation and Novasure procedures done. My wife has been very, very happy with the results. Yes, recovery from tubal ligation is longer than Adiana. But, the risk of pregnancy is significantly lower. From her perspective, the longer recovery was worth it. Going from Adiana's stated effectiveness of 98.4%, and assuming that's effectiveness over one year (usually the case with contraceptive information), that's 160 pregnancies per 1000 women over 10 years. For tubal ligation, it's 19 (source).

Another factor; tubal ligation will almost certainly be more expensive than Adiana.

My wife and I too did not want her to continue with hormonal contraception methods.

Educate yourself, evaluate your acceptance of risk, etc.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by bbarnsworth

Going from Adiana's stated effectiveness of 98.4%, and assuming that's effectiveness over one year (usually the case with contraceptive information), that's 160 pregnancies per 1000 women over 10 years. For tubal ligation, it's 19 (source).

Another factor; tubal ligation will almost certainly be more expensive than Adiana. .

Actually 98.4% would correspond to 16/1000--a bit better than the results claimed for tubal ligation. 160/1000=16%-or 84% effective.

[bbarnsworth]

Originally Posted by highlander

Actually 98.4% would correspond to 16/1000--a bit better than the results claimed for tubal ligation. 160/1000=16%-or 84% effective.

10 years. 10 years. 160 over 10 years. Adiana is not more effective than tubal ligation.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by bbarnsworth

10 years. 10 years. 160 over 10 years. Adiana is not more effective than tubal ligation.

The makes of that product make this claim:

98.4% 3 year efficacy rate is comparable to tubal ligation without the risk of surgery.

Here is a source talking about a 10 year success rate on tubal ligation.

Tubal ligation is more than 99 percent effective in the first year. This means that that out of every 100 women who have this procedure done, less than one will become pregnant during the first year of use.

Up to one out of every 100 women will become pregnant in each subsequent year following the first year (when the procedure was done). This is due to a slight possibility that fallopian tubes may reconnect by themselves.

Of every 1,000 women who have undergone tubal ligation, approximately 18.5 will become pregnant within 10 years. These statistics were concluded by the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization in their hallmark Crest study. However, depending on the method used and the age of the woman when she has the procedure done, this rate might be higher or lower.

If a pregnancy does occur after a tubal ligation, there is a 33% chance of it being an ectopic pregnancy. However, the overall rate of pregnancy is so low, that a woman’s chance of having an ectopic pregnancy is much lower than it would be provided she did not have the tubal ligation done in the first place.

Peterson, H. B., Xia, Z., Hughes, J. M., Wilcox, L. S., Tylor, L. R., & Trussell, J. (1996). The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: Findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 174, pp. 1161–1170.

Elsewhere on the adiana site they claim
1.1% failure for adiana vs. 0.5% for tubal ligation-but those appear to be the first year figures.


Basically they are claiming slightly worse first year figures, comparable 3 year figures. I don't think they have 10 year figures for adiana yet(the product is just too new)-but it appears possible that their figures will be a bit better if their 2nd and 3rd years are any indication-and if that 1996 10 year figure on tubal ligation is any indication.

[Playful1]

wow, had never heard of this procedure, but will definitely keep it in mind.

[highlander]

Essure is a competitive product that makes the following claims:

Essure
99.95% at 1 year
99.74% at 5 years

Tubal Ligation
98.45% at 1 year
98.69% at 5 years