The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Correspondence
PreviousPrevious
Volume 354:645-646 February 9, 2006 Number 6
NextNext

Long-Acting Methods of Contraception

Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF
-PDA Full Text
-Purchase this article

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited
-E-mail When Letters Appear

More Information
-Related Article
by Peterson, H. B.
-PubMed Citation
To the Editor: In the review of long-acting methods of contraception by Peterson and Curtis (Nov. 17 issue),1 the discussion of hysteroscopic tubal sterilization was limited to a single, addendum-like sentence. Moreover, the authors seemed to ignore the procedure when they discussed the complications and risks of tubal sterilization and when they concluded, "vasectomy . . . is safer."

Contrary to the impression given by the authors, tubal sterilization no longer requires general anesthesia, incisions, or operating rooms.2,3 Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization is not what might be called a "concept procedure" of the future. It is here now. Hysteroscopic tubal sterilization is safer . . . [Full Text of this Article]



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.