Zepeda ZJ, Madrigal GI, Briones LC, Hernández RM, Hernández MF

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 20
Paginas: 76-79
Archivo PDF: 70.43 Kb.

FRAGMENTO

Sólo en Estados Unidos, el riesgo de una gestación no planificada incumbe a dos tercios de las mujeres en edad fértil, de las cuales un 92.5% emplean algún método contraceptivo. Todos ellos presentan ventajas, inconvenientes y efectos secundarios, pero a la par algunos aportan beneficios en términos de salud no contraceptiva. En este sentido, la contracepción, independientemente del método, ahorra costos sanitarios, sobre todo aquéllos relacionados con el embarazo no deseado y sus complicaciones. Los métodos permanentes de prevención de embarazo constituyen, así, las opciones anticonceptivas más económicas al representar un incremento de calidad de vida ajustada por edad.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Trusell J, Kowall D. The essentials of contraception. In: Hatcher RA, Trusell J, Stewart F et al, editors. Contraceptive technology. 17th ed. New York: Ardent Media 2. Inc, 1998: 212.

2. Abma JC, Chandra A, Mosher WD, Peterson LS, Piccinino LJ. Fertility, family planning, and women’s health: new data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital health Stat 1997; 23: 1-114.

3. Sonnenberg FA, Burkman RT, Hagerty CG, Speroff L, Speroff R. Costs and net health effects of contraceptive methods. Contraception 2004; 69: 447-59.

4. Oddens BJ. Women’s satisfaction with birth control: a population survey of physical and psychological effects of oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, condoms, natural family planning, and sterilization among 1,466 women. Contraception 1999; 59: 277-86.

5. den Tonkelaar I, Oddens BJ. Factors influencing women’s satisfaction with birth control methods. Eur J Contracep Reprod Health Care 2001; 6: 153-8.

6. Baill IC, Cullins VE, Pati S. Counseling issues in tubal sterilization. Am Fam Physician 2003; 67: 1287-94.

7. Linn ES. Progress in contraception: new technology. Int J Fertil Womens Med 2003; 48: 182-91.

8. Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 30: 24-9.

9. Piccinino LJ, Mosher WD. Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982-1995. Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 30: 4-10.

10. Westhoff C, Davis A. Tubal sterilization: focus on the US experience. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 913-22.

11. United Nations. World Population Monitoring, 2002.

12. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Wilcox LS, Tylor LR, Trussell J, for the US Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group. Pregnancy after tubal sterilization with silicone ruber band and spring clip application. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97: 205-10.

13. EngenderHealth. Contraceptive sterilization: global issues and trends. New York: EngenderHealth; 2002.

14. Hibbert ML, Buller JL, Seymour SD, Poore SE, Davis GD. A microlaparoscopic technique for Pomeroy tubal ligation. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 249-51.

15. Gusta SP. Experience in 4,500 cases of laparoscopic sterilization. Int Surg 1993; 78: 76-8.

16. Miller GH. Office single puncture laparoscopy sterilization with local anesthesia. J S L S 1997; 1: 55-59.

17. Rioux JE, Daris M. Female sterilization: an update. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 13: 337-81.

18. Peterson HB, Hulka JF, Phillips JM, Surrey MW. Laparoscopic sterilization: American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists 1,991 membership survey. J Reprod Med 1993; 38: 57-46.

19. Layde PM, Peterson HB, Dicker RC, DeStefano F, Rubin GL, Ory HW. Risk factors for complications of tubal sterilization by laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62: 180-3.

20. Jansen FW, Kapiteyn K, Trimbos-Kemper T, Hermans J, Trimbos JB. Complications of laparoscopy: a prospective multicentre observational study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 595-600.