Intrauterine contraceptive devices

Tatum, Howard J.; Connell, Elizabeth B.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-407-01720-7.50013-8

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Vajinal ultrasonografik inceleme kay›p R‹A ay›r›c› tan›s›nda en çok kullan›lan yöntemdir (4) . Uterin kavite içinde ultrasonografik olarak saptanamayan R‹A yerinin belirlenmesinde, güvenilir ve ucuz görüntüleme yöntemleri olan x-ray grafiler kullan›labilmektedir (19) .…”

Section: Tartifimaunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Asymptomatic Ileal Perforation Due To Dislocated Intrauterine Device (IUD) And Treated With Minilaparotomy: A Case Report

Yıldırım¹,

Ertopcu²,

Özelmas³

et al. 2011

J Turk Soc Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Tartifimaunclassified

“…Vajinal kanama ve abdominal a¤r› gibi flikayetlere neden olabilen uterin perforasyon, kimi zaman herhangi bir semptom vermeden y›llarca farkedilmeden kalabilmektedir (4)(5)(6) .…”

unclassified

Asymptomatic Ileal Perforation Due To Dislocated Intrauterine Device (IUD) And Treated With Minilaparotomy: A Case Report

Yıldırım¹,

Ertopcu²,

Özelmas³

et al. 2011

J Turk Soc Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The width of the cavity is simple to measure if proper equipment is available (3-D sonography is best performing) but is not practical in most clinical settings. Smaller IUDs which adapt to the narrow uterine cavity of nulliparous women are needed in order to improve performance and continuation of use [38].A 24-mm transverse arm may be optimal for most of these women. Frameless IUDs fit in narrow as well as in large cavities.…”

Section: Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention of intrauterine contraceptive device expulsion and intolerance: Determination of the anchor mechanism

Goldstuck¹,

Wildemeersch²

2017

Clin Obstet Gynecol Reprod Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The intrauterine device (IUD) is an important long-acting reversible contraceptive method (LARC) which plays a major role in contraception. Expulsion and intolerance because of pain and/or bleeding are two factors which limit more widespread use. IUDs have to form some type of 'anchor', which must be well tolerated in order not to be expelled and not cause problems as might any other intrauterine object. We considered how an IUD might behave in comparison to a physiological or pathological intra-uterine body. Methods:We reviewed historical and present day IUDs on a three point rating scale of i) flexibility ii) horizontal to vertical ratio and iii) percentage increase in size of the IUD over mean cavity measurements to determine an Anchor Index(AI) to separate the types of anchor methods the various devices employ. Results:The AI generally varied from 3-7 in multiparous women signifying a marginally 'physiological' fit. The AI was mainly above 5 for most IUDs in nulliparous women indicating a largely non-physiological ('pathological' type) fit. Conclusions:The structure, composition and design of most IUDs are still not optimal for the nulliparous and occasionally the multiparous endometrial cavity. IUD design should be such that they appear to the endometrial cavity to be a physiological rather than a pathological incumbent.

show abstract

“…One reason for perforation is the failure to establish the size and orientation of the uterus by careful pelvic examination. This is particularly important where there is sharp ante-or retroflexion of the uterus, and where it is not straightened with traction using a tenaculum prior to insertion [5]. Complexity of the insertion procedure of the Mirena LNG-IUS might have played a role in the (partial) perforation of the fundus: as the arms of the IUD are retracted in the tube, creating a narrow protruding element, pushing the IUS out instead of retracting the tube would increase the risk of perforation.…”

Section: Case Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The risk of perforation ranges from 0 to 1.3 per 1,000 insertions [4]. Several cases of LNG-IUD-related uterine perforation have been reported [5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uterine perforation by the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device: case report

Lajtman¹,

Uharcek²,

Mlyncek³

2008

Gynecol Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors demonstrate a case report of the uterine perforation by the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) in a 33-year-old asymptomatic woman after an 18-month period after insertion. The device was not localized in utero during routine control with transvaginal sonography. After abdominal radiography examination the device was removed by laparoscopy. The possibilities of transuterine migration of IUD are discussed.

show abstract

Intrauterine contraceptive devices

Cited by 27 publications

References 61 publications

Asymptomatic Ileal Perforation Due To Dislocated Intrauterine Device (IUD) And Treated With Minilaparotomy: A Case Report

Asymptomatic Ileal Perforation Due To Dislocated Intrauterine Device (IUD) And Treated With Minilaparotomy: A Case Report

Prevention of intrauterine contraceptive device expulsion and intolerance: Determination of the anchor mechanism

Uterine perforation by the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device: case report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About