Safety and Effectiveness of NovaSure <sup>®</sup> Endometrial Ablation After Placement of Essure <sup>®</sup> Micro-Inserts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: In-office NovaSure ® after Essure ® is a clinical paradigm for which physicians are seeking information. A PubMed search (July 2011) revealed no peer-reviewed articles describing this treatment sequence. To address the paucity of data on this topic, patients who had undergone Essure followed by NovaSure in a private practice office between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 were evaluated. The objective was to evaluate safety and feasibility of in-office NovaSure after Essure, and to determine if the effectiveness of either procedure was altered by this treatment sequence. Design: This was a retrospective cohort study of 117 women (ages 24–52). Methods: Patients underwent Essure followed by NovaSure in two in-office sessions, separated by a median of 14 days. All patients had menorrhagia and desired permanent sterilization. A postprocedure patient questionnaire was administered to assess satisfaction and perceived effectiveness. Results: Among patients who underwent Essure followed by NovaSure, 83/117 (71%) returned for a 3-month hysterosalpingogram (HSG). Satisfactory placement and tubal occlusion were noted in 79/83 (95%) of these patients. Amenorrhea or spotting was observed in 72/97 (74%) of patients, 22/97 (23%) reported a satisfactory decrease in menstrual flow, and 3/97 (3%) reported ablation failure. Essure followed by NovaSure did not decrease the effectiveness of either procedure, and no adverse events were attributed to the combination of the two procedures. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with both procedures. Conclusions: In women seeking permanent birth control and menorrhagia reduction, in-office Essure followed by NovaSure appeared to be safe, effective, and associated with high patient satisfaction. (J GYNECOL SURG 28:1)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".