The present objective is to observe the side effects and complications of fem ale tubalsterilization by phenol-atabrinepaste (PAP) and phenolm ucilage (PM). 1 705 eligible w om en w ere divided random ly into tw o groups, 871 usinig PAP and 834 w om en using PM. Results: Thefeverratesw ere8.0and 4.4( P< 0.01 ) respec- tively in group PAP and group PM. Infection rates of the appendages w ere 2.3 and 1.2 respectively. The incidence of chem ical peritonitis, w ithin the lim its of pelvic cavity, w ere 1.1and 2.4respectively. Perforation of uterus, pelvic ab- scessand ectopicpregnancy w ere notfound during thisobservation. Slightabdom inal pain after the proceduresw ere 33.6and 30.8respectively. Slightvaginalbleed- ing after the procedure w as 23.2 and 18.0 respectively. Menstruation of the w om en w as not affected by the instillation. This five-year follow -up study neither show ed a positivePap testnor a potentialdeseasecaused by thesterilizing agents. This technique isa safe and efficientm ethod for fem ale sterilization. The present objective is to observe the side effects and complications of fem ale tubalsterilization by phenol-atabrine paste (PAP) and phenolm ucilage (PM). 1 705 eligible w om w ere divided random ly into tw o groups, 871 us inig PAP and 834 Infection rates of the appendages w ere 2.3 and 1.2 respectively. The incidence of chem ical peritonitis, w ithin the lim its of pelvic cavity, w ere 1.1and 2.4respectively. Perforation of uterus, pelvic abscess and ectopicpregnancy w ere notfound during thisobservation. Slightabdom inal pain after the proceduresw ere 33.6and 30.8respectively. Slightvaginalbleed - ing after the procedure w as 23.2 and 18.0 respectively. Menstruation of the w om en w as not affected by the instillation. This five-year follow -up study neither show ed a positivePap testnor a potential deseasecaused by the sterilizing a gents. This technique isa safe and efficientm ethod for fem ale sterilization.