{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024125452352231604, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012062726176115802, 'mean_word_length': 5.434108527131783, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A review of clinical data for currently approved hysteroscopic sterilization procedures.

TWO HYSTEROSCOPIC PERMANENT STERILIZATION PROCEDURES ARE APPROVED FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES: Essure® Permanent Birth Control System (Conceptus Incorporated, Mountain View, CA) and Adiana® Permanent Contraception (Hologic, Inc., Bedford, MA). This review compares the clinical trial data for these procedures. A notable difference is the resultant clinical pregnancy risk. The clinical trials for the Essure procedure have reported no pregnancies in 643 relying women in the 9 years since initiation of the studies. The clinical trial for the Adiana procedure has reported 12 pregnancies in 570 relying women in nearly 5 years of collected data. Other clinical outcome parameters concerning Essure and Adiana are examined in this review.