Uterine perforation caused by intrauterine devices: clinical course and treatment

Safety profile of levonorgestrel intrauterine system: Analysis of spontaneous reports submitted to FAERS

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is an established, long-acting contraceptive option. With the widespread use of the LNG-IUS, drug-reported adverse events (AEs) have also garnered significant attention. In this study, we conducted a real-world analysis using the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to assess the incidence of AEs associated with LNG-IUS use. Data from FAERS spanning from 2004Q1 to 2024Q1 were reviewed, with a focus on reports in which LNG-IUS was the primary suspected and secondary suspect drug. Signal detection was carried out utilizing Standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQ) and Preferred Terms (PT), with reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), and information component (IC) employed to identify Signals of Disproportionate Reporting (SDR) for AEs. A positive SDR was defined when all three methods indicated significance. Analysis of 13 SMQs revealed notable SDRs in ear and eye disorders, cardiac arrhythmias, and lipodystrophy. Of the 61 suspected SDRs identified at the PT level, nearly half were not previously documented in labeling. Key potential signals of AEs associated with LNG-IUS use included increased heart rate, papilledema, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, cervical dysplasia, ruptured ovarian cyst, and uterine embedment and perforation. The findings underscore the importance of signal detection using FAERS data for identifying safety concerns related to LNG-IUS. Long-term observational studies are warranted to confirm and further elucidate these potential safety signals.

Carrying a Pregnancy to Term With an Intrauterine Device in Place: A Case of an Intraabdominal Intrauterine Device Migration

Long-acting intrauterine contraceptives such as intrauterine devices (IUD) are popular due to their high rates of long-term efficacy, ease of use, and reversibility. Though rare, these devices can incur complications such as uterine perforation. Signs and symptoms are often vague abdominal and pelvic pain, and patients rarely present with a surgical emergency. This uterine perforation can happen immediately upon IUD placement or in a delayed manner. This case details an example of an IUD uterine perforation with abdominal migration two years after placement. The patient's history is complicated by the unique fact that she became pregnant and carried her pregnancy to a term vaginal delivery after the IUD had been placed. Her pregnancy led healthcare providers from previous encounters to believe that the IUD had been spontaneously expelled. The IUD was identified in the patient's left lower abdominal cavity via computed tomography (CT) and was surgically removed uneventfully.

A Displaced Intrauterine Device Eroding Into the Sigmoid Colon

A 36-year-old female presented to the gynecology office eight weeks after the placement of a ParaGard intrauterine device (IUD). Upon gynecologic examination, the strings of the IUD were not found. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed which reported the IUD embedded in the sigmoid colon. Initial diagnostic laparoscopy was done without bowel preparation and revealed an IUD embedded within the sigmoid colon and mesocolon. Colonoscopy did not reveal any breach of the colonic lumen. A second diagnostic laparoscopy was planned with the robotic-assisted technique after bowel preparation. Intraoperative findings during the second operation identified the IUD embedded in the antimesenteric side of the sigmoid colon with surrounding scar tissue to the uterus. The IUD was sharply freed using robotic scissors and the resulting serosal defect was sutured in layers with buttress made of appendices epiploica. The patient recovered well and had an excellent outcome. Our article highlights the minimally invasive method of dealing with a displaced IUD. The use of the robotic technique was helpful in our case to achieve an excellent outcome.

Immediate and delayed placement of the intrauterine device after abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This article aims to report the comprehensive and up-to-date analysis and evidence of the insertion rate, expulsion rate, removal rate, and utilization rate of immediate placement of intrauterine devices (IUDs) versus delayed placement after artificial abortion. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were comprehensively searched up to January 12, 2024 for studies that compared immediate versus delayed insertion of IUDs after abortion. The evaluation metrics included the number of IUD insertion after surgical or medical abortions, the frequency of expulsion and removal at 6 months or 1 year, the number of continued usage, pain intensity scores, the number of infections, the duration of bleeding, and instances of uterine perforation during or after IUD insertion. Ten randomized controlled articles were eligible, comprising 11 research projects, of which 3 projects involved the placement of an IUD after surgical abortion, and 8 projects involved the placement of an IUD after medical abortion. This included 2025 patients (977 in the immediate insertion group and 1,048 in the delayed insertion group). We summarized all the extracted evidence. The meta-analysis results indicated that for post-surgical abortions, the immediate insertion group exhibited a higher IUD placement rate than the delayed insertion group. After medical abortions, the immediate insertion group showed higher rates of IUD placement, utilization, and expulsion at 6 months or 1 year. The two groups showed no statistically significant differences in the removal rate, post-insertion infection rate, pain scores during insertion, and days of bleeding during the follow-up period. Compared to delayed placement, immediate insertion of IUDs can not only increase the usage rate at 6 months or 1 year but also enhance the placement rate.

Intrauterine device migration resulting in acute appendicitis: A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

The Intrauterine Contraceptive Device (IUD), a widely used contraceptive since 1965, has demonstrated efficacy but is associated with complications such as bleeding, pain, and rare occurrences of perforation. This case report details an IUD migration into the peritoneal cavity, leading to acute appendicitis.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 33-year-old woman, with a history of IUD insertion 16 months prior, presented with pelvic pain. Gynecological examination and computed tomography, revealed the IUD intraperitoneal migration. The patient underwent laparoscopic extraction of the IUD which was embedded in the appendix and appendectomy, with an uneventful recovery.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

This case emphasizes the complexity of IUD migration and its rare association with acute appendicitis, underscoring the importance of vigilant monitoring and prompt intervention. We also explored factors contributing to IUD perforation risk, imaging modalities for detection, and emphasizes the necessity of surgical removal upon confirmation. We highlight the fact that despite the atypical presentation with minimal symptoms, we should always consider emergency situations. Surgical intervention, particularly laparoscopy, may be the standard approach for managing migrated IUDs.

CONCLUSION

We insist about the critical need for thorough assessment and vigilance in managing IUD-related complications, emphasizing timely intervention to ensure patient safety. This case contributes valuable insights into the complexities surrounding IUD migration, urging healthcare professionals to remain attentive to potential injuries in patients with a history of IUD insertion and abdominal pain.

Asymptomatic uterine perforation and IUD migration to the broad ligament: A case report

RATIONALE

Uterine perforation is a serious complication of intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) placement. However, as complete uterine perforation and extrauterine migration may remain asymptomatic, thorough localization of the IUD is important prior to reinsertion.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 33-year-old patient who has had 4 IUD insertions, wherein the location of the first IUD (inserted 14 years ago) was not identified prior to reinsertion and replacement of the subsequent three. She presented to hospital with a 6-month history of abdominal pain. Pelvic ultrasonography (US), radiography, hysteroscopy and laparoscopy examinations confirmed that a retained migrated IUD in the right broad ligament.

DIAGNOSIS

Uterine perforation, IUD migration to the broad ligament.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient underwent hysteroscopy and laparoscopy.

OUTCOMES

Both IUDs were successfully removed without any complications.

Hydronephrosis Due to Intraureteral Migration of Missed Intrauterine Device

Migration of intrauterine devices (IUDs) to the ureter causing ureteral obstruction is an extremely rare event. A 45-year-old female patient was admitted to our hospital with a complaint of pain in the right flank and inferior right quadrant of the abdomen. On genitourinary system ultrasonography, grade 3 hydronephrosis was found in the right kidney. On the abdominopelvic radiography, there was an appearance consistent with two IUDs, one in the region consistent with the course of the right distal ureter and the other in the usual localisation. The first IUD was thought to have spontaneously detached from the uterus, so a second IUD was implanted. A right-sided extravesical ureteroneocystostomy (Lich-Gregoir) operation was performed. The operation was terminated with the placement of a 4.8 French, 26 cm double-J stent in the ureter. The patient was followed up in our hospital for 26 months and she was asymptomatic during follow-up, hydronephrosis was resolved completely, and no complications were encountered during follow-up clinical and ultrasonography examinations.

Unilateral hydroureteronephrosis after introduction of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: a case report and literature review

Insertion of a LNG-Intra-uterine System (LNG-IUS) has many gynecological indications. The approved indications worldwide are contraception, treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding depending on not organic disease, and endometrial protection in case of an estrogenic therapy. Instead adenomyosis, fibroids, and fertility-sparing management of endometrial hyperplasia or early endometrial cancer in patients with desire of pregnancy are off label indications. Hydroureteronephrosis is an uncommon complication during LNG-IUS insertion. There are few cases described in the literature. The first diagnostic approach for this complication is an abdominal-pelvic ultrasound scan to identify the abnormal position of the device. Diagnostic management includes computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which are necessary to confirm hydroureteronephrosis and to assess the exact location of the LNG-IUS in the abdomen. A minimally invasive approach is the standard of care with the removal of the device, while the therapeutic management of the hydroureteronephrosis depends on ureteral and kidney involvement. We report the history of a dislocated LNG-IUS in the left paracervical space with subsequent ipsilateral hydroureteronephrosis. In our case we removed the device through hysteroscopy and later inserted a J-J stent. Follow-up at three months revealed the persistence of left hydroureteronephrosis, so we performed ureter reimplantation. We also performed a review of the literature to analyze common diagnostic and therapeutic pathways for this rare complication.

Migrated intrauterine device: Case series report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Implantation of an intrauterine device (IUD) is a common method of contraception in Saudi Arabia. Although rare, IUD migration and colon perforation have been reported. The current report presented three cases of IUD migration into the colon and recto-uterine pouch.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

The study included a series of three cases of migrated IUDs. The first case was a 25-year-old female, Gravida 2, Para 2 + 0, at 28 week-gestation, who presented with abdominal pain with a history of IUD placement that had not been removed or imaged before. The patient submitted to the caesarian section (CS), where IUD was found in the sigmoid colon. Elective laparoscopic removal of IUD with resection and primary repair of sigmoid colon was done later. The second case was a 37-year-old female, Gravida 1, Para 1 + 0, non-pregnant hypothyroidism, and a history of IUD placement. The patient got pregnant and gave birth through CS. She was then presented with abdominal pain and requested the removal of the IUD. On colonoscopy, IUD was seen in the pouch of Douglas with no evidence of a fistulous tract. IUD was removed through laparoscopy. The third case was a 47-year-old female, Gravida 14, Para 14 + 0, with a history of previous CS presented with a missing IUD that had been inserted 20 years ago after she had five pregnancies and subsequent deliveries. On colonoscopy, IUD was embedded on the wall of the transverse colon, and through abdominal surgery, IUD was removed by cutting through the colon and primary repair was done. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: the presentation of IUD migration cases was foundto vary according to the site of migration and type of IUD.however the cases are usually present with abdominal pain. An abdominal pelvic imaging with CT in these patients are essential in diagnosis. Retrival of migrating IUDs may be done through colonoscopy, laparoscopy, and in some cases with adhesion laparotomy is the solution.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal and pelvic CT scan are very important in the diagnosis and the localization of IUD. Elective colonoscopy and laparoscopy are successful management approaches for these cases.

An Unusual, Delayed Presentation of a Migrated Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Into the Rectosigmoid Colon

The current literature suggests that serious complications after intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) insertion are rare. We present a rare case of a migrated IUCD into the rectosigmoid colon. A 33-year-old woman (parity one) presented to the emergency department with a three-day history of flank pain, upper urinary tract infection symptoms, and a low-grade fever. Differentials initially included renal colic or pyelonephritis. However, subsequent computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CT-KUB) and magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis (MRI-pelvis) showed a migrated IUCD posterior to the uterine body, with both ends closely abutting onto the adjacent proximal rectum. During further history-taking, she reported a past surgical history of an emergency caesarean section five years ago and the insertion of a copper-IUCD six weeks postnatally. She was subsequently referred to the gynaecologists. In view of the involvement of the bowels, the colorectal surgeons were consulted, and the patient was managed by a multidisciplinary team. The patient subsequently underwent diagnostic hysteroscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, diagnostic laparoscopy, removal of impacted IUCD, and repair of the rectum. Intraoperatively, her hysteroscopy noted a normal uterus with an intact cavity. Flexible sigmoidoscopy noted the horizontal arm of the IUCD abutting into the lumen of the rectosigmoid region; however, attempted removal with traction was unsuccessful. A partial rectotomy was done eventually to remove the IUCD. Migration of an IUCD is rare, with uterine perforation rates ranging from 0.04% to 0.2%. Albeit a rare complication, this case highlights the need for clinicians to be cognizant of complications arising from IUCD insertion, as symptoms are often non-specific and mild. This case also highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary discussion in the management of a migrated IUCD, which may include gynaecologists, colorectal surgeons, radiologists, and more. Many innovative ways were also discussed regarding the assessment of it, which includes preoperative imaging or endoscopic evaluation. Novel methods of removal of migrated IUCD in the rectosigmoid colon have also been proposed, including manual traction, proctoscopy, rigid sigmoidoscopy, and removal via a snare. They provide an alternative to the traditional diagnostic laparoscopy or laparotomy, thus reducing the need for general anaesthesia or operative intervention. Looking forward, long-term studies can be done to evaluate the need for intervention for asymptomatic patients where the risk of surgery may outweigh the benefits.

Perforation of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system found at one month after insertion: A case report

BACKGROUND

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is widely used in contraception, menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea and to prevent endometrial hyperplasia during estrogen supplementation. Perforation is more often seen after early postpartum placement. Perforation of the LNG-IUS occurring one month after placement is rare.

CASE SUMMARY

A 42-year-old female complained of progressive dysmenorrhea and increased menstrual volume. She was diagnosed with adenomyosis and the LNG-IUS was inserted in her uterine cavity. Routine ultrasound examination one month later revealed that the intra-uterine device (IUD) was not found in the uterine cavity, and further X-ray and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging showed an abnormal signal area in the left posterior region of the uterus. Laparoscopic exploratory surgery was performed and the LNG-IUS was found in the left uterosacral ligament.

CONCLUSION

Perforation of a LNG-IUS occurring one month after placement is rare, and is more common in inexperienced operators and after early postpartum placement. When the operation is difficult, ultrasound monitoring is recommended to reduce the risk of IUD perforation. For patients with inadequate surgery, postoperative imaging is recommended to detect potential risks as soon as possible.

Evaluation of pharmacokinetics and safety of a long-term estradiol-releasing stent in rat uterine

Purpose

Intrauterine adhesion (IUA), often leading to gynecological complications including amenorrhea, abdominal pain and infertility, is frequently induced by injuries to the endometrium. Hence it would be of great benefit to take efforts to prevent adhesion after intrauterine operations. Orally administration of 17β-estradiol (E2) is commonly used to promote endometrium regeneration, but is limited by low concentrations at the injured sites. We aim at preparing an E2-releasing uterine stent, which could improve the efficiency of E2 therapy and be utilized for IUA prevention.

Methods

We designed a silicone rubber stent, which could be implanted in the uterine cavity and continuously release E2 in long term. Stents were placed in rodent uterine, and removed at different time points. Remaining E2 in stent was measured by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and organ E2 concentrations were detected by enzyme-linked immuno sorbent assay (ELISA). Endometrium morphology was examined by histological staining of paraffin sections.

Results

Our stent showed a controlled release of E2 in rodent uterine for over 60 days, and significantly increased E2 concentration in serum and in situ uterine. After the stent was removed from uterine, E2 rapidly reverted to a normal level. Also, the stent did not induce pathological changes in endometrium.

Conclusions

The uterine stent provided abundant local E2 in uterine cavity with satisfactory safety. The silicone rubber based E2-releasing uterine stent could be further advanced by adjusting its shape and E2 load for its clinical application, and might promisingly help lowering the incidence of IUA.

•

The silicone rubber uterine stent continuously released E2 in long term.

•

The E2-releasing uterine stent revealed more efficient E2 delivery capacity than orally administrated E2.

•

The E2-releasing uterine stent is safe for endometrium and remote organs.

Ectopic Intrauterine Device Revealed by Ureteral Colic in a 37-Week Pregnant Woman: Case Report

Copper T intrauterine devices (IUDs) are a popular long-acting reversible contraceptive method. The most common reasons for contraceptive failure are expulsion and extrauterine migration. We report a case of a 28-year-old female, G13P3, 37 weeks pregnant, who presented to the hospital for left abdominal flank pain. The patient was admitted for treatment of left ureteral colic. The woman went into labour, and Caesarean Section was performed due to foetal distress. During the surgery, an inspection of the peritoneal cavity revealed a copper IUD embedded in the granulous tissue located in the left lateral abdominal region, which was extracted. No uterine scar tissue could be identified macroscopically. The migration of an IUD in the abdominal cavity is a rare finding, and coexistence with third-trimester pregnancy is an infrequent but serious event due to potential visceral complications. Higher gravidity can be associated with an increased risk of IUD migration in women with a non-scarred uterus.

Development and validation of a tool for competence assessment of the insert of the intrauterine device

Abstract Objectives:. to develop and validate an instrument to assess the professional competence of nurses in the insertion of the intrauterine device (IUD) Methods: methodological study, developed in three stages: 1) tool development (Theoretical procedures); 2) evaluation of the tool by experts and judgment of the initially proposed items (Appearance validation and content validation); 3) test of the version resulting from the assessment by experts and assessment of internal consistency (Analytical procedures). Ten judges participated in the face and content validation, among obstetric nurses and gynecologists/obstetricians from the Sofa Feldman Hospital in Belo Horizonte (MG), while 38 nursing residency students were evaluated using the test tool, in the last stage of the study. Calculations of the Content Validity Index (CVI) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient were performed as psychometric measures. Results: the initial tool covered 39 items. No item obtained CVI<0.8; however, through suggestions from the judges, items were merged, totaling 34 items. The total Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this version was 0.828. Conclusion: the tool developed is valid and reliable. It is believed that the implementation of this tool will contribute to the training of professionals and the improvement of knowledge, behaviors, and skills in nursing consultations with a focus on reproductive planning with an emphasis on the insertion of the IUD.

Making the financial case for immediate postpartum intrauterine device: a budget impact analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines support inpatient postpartum intrauterine device insertion. However, inpatient placement remains infrequent, in part because of inconsistent private insurance reimbursement.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore how the payer's costs and number of unintended pregnancies associated with a postpartum intrauterine device differed on the basis of placement timing.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a decision tree model and following a hypothetical cohort of people who intend to use an intrauterine device after their delivery, we conducted a cost analysis comparing the planned approach of inpatient vs outpatient postpartum insertion. Using a 2-year time horizon, the probability and cost estimates were derived from literature review. Our primary outcome was the total accrued costs to the payer. Secondarily, we examined the rates of early repeat pregnancy and sensitivity to estimates of key inputs, including the expulsion rates and the intrauterine device cost.

RESULTS

Although an inpatient intrauterine device placement's upfront costs were higher, the total cost of this approach was lower. Including the costs of managing expulsions and complications, our model suggests that for every 1000 people desiring a postpartum intrauterine device, the intended inpatient intrauterine device placement resulted in total cost savings of $211,100 and the prevention of 37 additional pregnancies compared with outpatient placement. The inpatient cost savings were superior to the outpatient savings, largely because of a known high proportion not returning for outpatient placement and the resulting higher number of unintended pregnancies among the patients desiring outpatient placement. In sensitivity analyses, we found that the total cost to the payer was sensitive to the probability of expulsion after immediate postpartum intrauterine device placement.

CONCLUSION

For beneficiaries desiring postpartum intrauterine device, payers are likely to save money by fully reimbursing inpatient intrauterine device placement rather than incentivizing placement at the frequently missed postpartum visit. These results support the financial case for private insurers to fully and separately reimburse (ie, "unbundle" from the single payment for delivery) inpatient postpartum intrauterine device placement.

IUD perforation and embedment within omentum: A rare and perplexing incidence

Intrauterine devices rarely fail, which results in pregnancy. Meanwhile, these devices can perforate uterine and migrate through abdomen. Our case experienced IUD failure and perforation simultaneously, and the device was embedded in omentum and shifted rapidly, which made it hard to localize and could only be removed using ultrasonography guidance.

Far migration of an intrauterine contraceptive device from the uterus to the small bowel

A sexually active, asymptomatic 44-year-old presented for Intrauterine device (IUD) removal that had been in place for 13 years. IUD removal was unsuccessful as the strings could not be located. Imaging revealed an extrauterine IUD and at surgical removal of the abdominal IUD a small bowel perforation requiring bowel resection was required. Uterine perforation is a rare complication of IUD use occurring in approximately 1-1.3 in 1000. Risk factors for perforation include provider inexperience, retroverted uterus, immobile uterus, and myometrial defect from a previous cesarean delivery or myomectomy.

In-office hysteroscopic removal of retained or fragmented intrauterine device without anesthesia: a cross-sectional analysis of an international survey

To investigate about the opinions of gynecologists regarding the in-office hysteroscopic removal of retained or fragmented intrauterine device (IUD) without anesthesia. An online survey was made available to gynecologists who routinely performed in-office hysteroscopy. Five areas of interest were analyzed: average number of hysteroscopic procedures performed without anesthesia, availability on their local market of the different types of hormonal and non-hormonal IUDs, reasons for the hysteroscopic removal of the IUD, types of IUDs that were more commonly found retained or fragmented and, overall difficulty of the hysteroscopic removal. A total of 419 surgeons voluntarily responded the survey, of which 19 were excluded for not performing in-office hysteroscopy. The most commonly available IUD was the Levonorgestrel-based Mirena (Bayer Healthcare, Germany) or similar, (399/400, 99.7%), followed by Copper T (Paragard, CooperSurgical INC, United States) (397/400, 99.2%), Multiload (234/400, 58.5%) and Jaydess (Bayer Healthcare, Germany) (227/400, 56.7%). The intracavitary retention of the IUD with (44.5%, 178/400) and without (42.2%, 169/400) visible strings accounted as the most common reason for undergoing hysteroscopic IUD removal. Copper T IUD was the most common intracavitary retained (297/400, 74.2%) as well as fragmented device (236/400, 59.9%). The in-office hysteroscopic removal of the IUD was considered an easy procedure by almost all the operators (386/400, 96.5%). In-office hysteroscopy without anesthesia is seen as a feasible and easy approach to remove retained or fragmented IUDs inside the uterine cavity or cervical canal. While the Levonorgestrel-based IUD is the most commercialized, Copper T IUDs are the most commonly found retained or fragmented.

The limitations of patient-centered care: The case of early long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) removal

Patient-centered care (PCC) is frequently recommended to improve healthcare outcomes in the United States. Despite its purported benefits, little research explores how and to what extent providers implement this model in their care. We examine such processes through the case of contraception, specifically, "early" removals of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). In-depth interviews with 51 healthcare providers reveal that while providers describe embracing patient-centeredness when considering patients' early LARC removal requests, their implementation ironically sidelines patient preferences and needs. Rather than be responsive to patients' requests, all providers in the study resist early LARC removal by: withholding information about self-removal of intrauterine devices (IUDs); negotiating with patients to keep their device longer; setting subjective timelines to prolong LARC use; and/or engaging in delay tactics to wear down patients' resolve for removal. Furthermore, beyond simply resisting LARC removal requests using these strategies, providers purposively employ tenets of PCC to sway patients away from removal. In other words, providers utilize PCC as a means to undermine it. Understanding how providers implement patient-centered care reveals the challenges to doing so, even in cases like early LARC removal where providers indicate patient-centeredness is a priority. It also elucidates the need for enhanced training, specificity, and institutionalization around patient-centered models of care; informs interventions that promote LARC use among patients; as well as offers opportunities for improving patient-provider exchanges generally.

Imaging evaluation of uterine perforation and rupture

Uterine perforation and rupture, denoting iatrogenic and non-iatrogenic uterine wall injury, respectively, are associated with substantial morbidity,and at times mortality. Diverse conditions can result in injury to both the gravid and the non-gravid uterus, and imaging plays a central role in diagnosis of such suspected cases. Ultrasound (US) is the initial imaging modality of choice, depicting the secondary signs associated with uterine wall injury and occasionally revealing the site of perforation. Computed tomography can be selectively used to complement US findings, to provide a more comprehensive picture, and to investigate complications beyond the reach of US, such as bowel injury. In certain scenarios, magnetic resonance imaging can be an important problem-solving tool as well. Finally, catheter angiography is a valuable tool with both diagnostic and therapeutic capability, with potential for fertility preservation. In this manuscript, we will highlight the clinical and imaging approach to uterine perforation and rupture, while emphasizing the value of various imaging modalities in this context. In addition, we will review the multi-modality imaging features of uterine perforation and rupture and will address the role of the radiologist as a crucial member of the management team. Finally, a summary diagrammatic depiction of imaging approach to patients presenting with uterine perforation or rupture is provided.

Migration of intrauterine device caused asymptomatic acute appendicitis: A case report

Missing of IUD is not always due to expulsion. If the patient is sure that it has not got expulsed, further investigations such as abdominal ultrasound and X-ray should be performed to look for the device before any device-related complications.

A 47-Year-Old Woman with Gastric Transmigration of an Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Managed by Laparoscopic Wedge Gastric Resection

Patient: Female, 47-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Perforated intrauterine contraceptive device

Symptoms: Asymptomatic

Medication:—

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Surgery

Dislocated intrauterine devices: clinical presentations, diagnosis and management

OBJECTIVE

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are globally one of the most popular methods of contraception. Uterine perforation is one of the most significant complications of IUD use and commonly occurs at the time of IUD insertion rather than presenting as delayed migration. This paper reports a series of 13 cases of displaced IUDs requiring retrieval by laparoscopy or laparotomy. All the IUDs were copper bearing and most perforations occurred immediately after IUD insertion.

CASES

In two patients with sigmoid colon injury and IUD penetration of the appendix, laparoscopic management had failed and laparotomy was necessary owing to severe obliteration of the pelvic cavity. In one patient laparotomy was the preferred surgical approach owing to acute bowel perforation. In the remaining patients, the displaced devices were successfully removed by laparoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Uterine perforation and IUD migration to the organs in the abdominopelvic cavity are serious complications of IUD insertion and can be successfully managed by laparoscopy, or by laparotomy in the presence of severe pelvic adhesions or unexpected complications.

Complications associated with intravesical migration of an intrauterine device

The intrauterine device (IUD) is the most common method of reversible contraception in women. However, IUD can perforate the uterus and also migrate into pelvic or abdominal organs. A 43-year-old woman with a 5-year history of IUD placement and without specific symptoms, decided to remove her IUD and undergo tubal ligation. Radiological assessment, including a pelvic X-ray and ultrasonography, revealed no copper IUD within the uterus. Retrieval attempts with cystoscopy were unsuccessful. The IUD was found embedded in the fundal part of the bladder wall and was subsequently removed through a laparotomy incision. Although there are cases in the literature that were successfully managed with cystoscopy, in chronic cases, the formation of granulation tissue may preclude retrieval of an IUD using this intervention.

Endoscopic Removal of Migrated Intrauterine Device: Case Report and Review of Literature and Technique

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are commonly used contraceptive methods. Uterine perforation and device migration are rare but have been/are previously described as adverse events. Migration of the perforated IUD into the bowel is rare and generally requires surgical removal. We describe the endoscopic removal of an IUD embedded in the rectal wall in an otherwise healthy patient. Extraction of the IUD was uncomplicated, well tolerated, and followed by same-day hospital discharge. No prophylactic hemostasis or antimicrobial coverage was needed. We also present a comprehensive review of the reported endoscopic IUD removal. We recommend close investigation and follow-up when pregnancy or other potential signs of IUD migration occur. Endoscopic removal appears to be a safe and cost-effective technique for the extraction of IUDs that migrate into the bowel lumen.

[Intrauterine contraception: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]

OBJECTIVE

To provide national clinical guidelines focusing on intrauterine contraception.

METHODS

A systematic review of available literature was performed using Pubmed and Cochrane libraries. American, British and Canadian guidelines were considered as well.

RESULTS

Intrauterine contraception (IUC) displays a wide panel of indications, including adolescents, nulliparous, patients living with HIV before AIDS (Grade B) and women with history of ectopic pregnancy (Grade C). Cervical cancer screening should not be modified in women with IUC (Grade B). Bimanual examination and cervix inspection are mandatory before device insertion (Grade B). Patients should not systematically undergo screening for sexually transmitted infections (STI) before device insertion (Grade B). Screening for STI should be preferably done before insertion but it can be performed at the time of device insertion in asymptomatic women (Grade B). Routine antibiotic prophylaxis and premedication are not recommended before insertion (Grade A). A follow-up visit may be offered several weeks after insertion (Professional consensus). Routine pelvic ultrasound examination in not recommended after device insertion (Grade B). In patients with IUC, unscheduled bleeding, when persistent or associated with pelvic pain, requires further investigation to rule out complication (Professional agreement). Suspected uterine perforation warrants radiological workup to locate the device (Professional consensus). Laparoscopic approach should be preferred for elective removal of intrauterine device from abdominal cavity (Professional consensus). In case of accidental pregnancy with intrauterine device in situ, ectopic pregnancy should be excluded (Grade B). In case of viable and desired intrauterine pregnancy, intrauterine device removal is recommended if the strings are reachable (Grade C). Detection of Actinomyces-like organisms on pap smear in asymptomatic patients with intrauterine contraception does not require further intervention (Grade B). Immediate removal of intrauterine device is not recommended in case of STI or pelvic inflammatory disease (Grade B). Device removal should be considered in the absence of clinical improvement after 48 to 72 hours of appropriate treatment (Grade B).

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine contraception is a long-acting and reversible contraception method displaying great efficacy and high continuation rate. In contrast, complication rate is low. It should thus be offered to both nulliparous and multiparous women.

Studies of acute and subchronic systemic toxicity associated with a copper/low-density polyethylene nanocomposite intrauterine device

Introduction

The physiologic safety of devices and materials intended for clinical implantation should be evaluated. This study, a logical extension of our previous work, aimed to investigate the safety of a novel contraceptive device, the copper/low-density polyethylene nanocomposite intrauterine device (nano-Cu/LDPE IUD), through studies of its potential toxicity after acute and subchronic administration in mice and rats.

Methods

For the acute toxicity study, single 50 mL/kg doses of nano-Cu/LDPE IUD extracts were administered to mice via intravenous or intraperitoneal injection. General behavioral adverse effects, mortality, and body weights were evaluated for up to 72 hours. In the 13-week subchronic toxicity study, the nano-Cu/LDPE composite with 10-fold higher than the standard clinical dose was implanted subcutaneously into the dorsal skin of Wistar rats. The control group underwent a sham procedure without material insertion.

Results

During all acute study observation times, the biologic reactions of the mice in the nano-Cu/LDPE group did not differ from those observed in the control group. The groups did not differ statistically in terms of body weight gain, and no macroscopic changes were observed in any organs. In the subchronic study, no clinical signs of toxicity or mortality were observed in either the nano-Cu/LDPE or control group during the 13-week period. The nano-Cu/LDPE composite did not cause any alterations in body weight, food consumption, hematologic and biochemical parameters, or organ weight relative to the control for any observed sample group. Histopathologic examinations of the organs revealed normal architecture, indicating that the inserted material did not cause morphologic disturbances in the rats.

Conclusion

Overall, the results indicate that the nano-Cu/LDPE IUD did not induce systemic toxicity under experimental conditions of the recommended standard practices, suggesting that the novel material IUD is safe and feasible for future contraceptive applications.

IUD embedment in the fallopian tube: An unexpected location for a translocated IUD

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are the most common form of contraceptive used worldwide. The imaging features of IUDs and their potential complications are crucial to recognize in order to determine adequate positioning and ultimately function of the IUD. Herein, we report a rare case of a copper IUD embedded in the left fallopian tube that required surgical removal. Only a few such cases have been reported in the literature to date.

Clinical characteristic and intraoperative findings of uterine perforation patients in using of intrauterine devices (IUDs)

Background

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are the most popular form of contraception used worldwide; however, IUD is not risk-free. IUD migrations, especially uterine perforations, were frequently occurred in patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and intraoperative findings in patients with migrated IUDs.

Results

29 cases of uterine perforation associated with migrated IUDs and 69 control patients were followed between January 2008 to March 2015. Patients who used IUDs within first 6 months from the last delivery experienced a characteristically high rate of the perforation of the uterine wall. A significantly larger number of IUD insertion associated with uterine perforation were performed in rural hospitals or operated at a lower level health care system. There was no clear difference in the age and presented symptoms in patients between two groups. Majority of contraceptive intrauterine devices was the copper-releasing IUDs. Furthermore, patients who used V-shaped IUD showed significantly higher incidence of pelvic adhesions when compared with the users of O-shaped IUDs.

Conclusions

Unique clinical characteristics of IUD migration were identified in patients with uterine perforation. Hysteroscopy and/or laparoscopy were the effective approaches to remove the migrated IUDs. Improving operating skills is required at the lower level of health care system.

Combined Laparoscopic and Cystoscopic Retrieval of Forgotten Translocated Intrauterine Contraceptive Device

The most commonly used long-term reversible female contraception is intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD). Its use is however associated with documented complications. Uterine perforation, though rare, is arguably the most surgically important of all these complications. We report a case of a 48-year-old para 4⁺⁰ (4 alive) woman who had IUCD insertion 17 years earlier and had forgotten she had the device having had two children thereafter. The IUCD was subsequently translocated through the dome of the bladder into the peritoneal cavity with calculus formation around the tail and thread of the IUCD in the urinary bladder causing recurrent urinary tract infection. This “Collar Stud” effect made either cystoscopic or laparoscopic retrieval alone unsuccessful necessitating a combined approach. This case report highlights the need for a combined laparoscopic and cystoscopic approach in the retrieval of the unusual presentation of translocated IUCD.

Pregnant with a perforated levonorgestrel intrauterine system and visible threads at the cervical os

We present a case in which a patient presented with a pregnancy of unknown location and normally rising human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels but with a levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) present. The LNG-IUD had been placed 4.5 years ago. Although unintended, this pregnancy was desired. Strings were clearly visible and initial 2D ultrasound suggested intrauterine location of the LNG-IUD. The LNG-IUD could not be removed however. The patient was managed expectantly with close follow-up, serial beta-hCGs and serial ultrasounds until definitive diagnosis of the location of the pregnancy. The patient was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy and during laparoscopy the body of the IUD was noted in the posterior cul-de-sac. When patients present with multiple competing clinical problems it is important to look at the patient as a whole, taking into account their desires, in order to construct a cohesive management plan.

Management of intra-abdominally translocated contraceptive devices, is surgery the only way to treat this problem?

This study was a multi-centre retrospective review of patients with uterine perforation caused by intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs). A total of 15 patients were registered, in a seven year period. Among them, five were asymptomatic and the rest were symptomatic. Asymptomatic patients were managed conservatively, except in one case in which the patient requested surgery because she also wanted a tubal ligation. Symptomatic patients all underwent surgery. All the surgeries were elective and all the surgical procedures were initiated laparoscopically. There were seven complications in the surgically managed group: conversion to laparotomy (n = 3), bowel injury (n = 2), bladder injury (n = 1), and wound infection (n = 1). Mild and severe adhesions (81.8%), and abscess (18.1%) formation related to translocated IUD (TIUD) were observed during surgery. All the patients were uneventful at 1 to 5 years of follow-up. A TIUD, by causing adhesions, complicates future laparoscopic surgery and increases the likelihood of conversion to laparotomy. While surgery is indicated to prevent TIUD-induced adhesive complications, it may also be the cause of both adhesions and complications, resulting in a vicious cycle. Some asymptomatic women, especially elderly patients with comorbidities, may not need or may be better managed without treatment. Impact statement In this study we try to find an answer for the question of "Should removal of a translocated intrauterine contraceptive device (TIUD) routinely be performed even if patients are asymptomatic?" From only the theoretical point of view there were some reports supporting conservative management in asymptomatic patients. The other studies addressing this issue were case reports including few patients with a short-term follow-up. The novelties of the present study include multi-centre design, detailed clinical and surgical information about the patients and the long period of follow-up. Most clinicians have limited experiences in managing TIUD because perforation is a rare event. So it can be difficult to know exactly what the surgeon will encounter intraoperatively. We undertook this study with the aim of providing a perspective about patients with TIUD for those faced with this situation. This is a descriptive study reporting 15 cases of TIUDs and management. Asymptomatic patients were managed conservatively, and symptomatic patients were operated. There are important implications resulting from this study that in asymptomatic patients leaving the IUD in place may be a reasonable option, mostly as the risk of surgical intervention is quite high with a high rate of complications with surgical management.

Surgical Removal of an Extrauterine Device Migrating to Appendix

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) remain highly effective reversible family planning methods in developing countries. We aimed to report one of the complications of extrauterine and intrauterine devices. A 44-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital with mislocated intrauterine device and abnormal uterine bleeding. Extrauterine IUD device was proven by ultrasound and X-ray. She had normal blood test count with a negative pregnancy test. There are several cases of complications with intrauterine devices, but this is the first case report about an extrauterine IUD embedded by inflame enlarged appendix presenting with abnormal uterine bleeding. Although intrauterine devices are a common safe method for contraception, there is no risk-free insertion even with advanced ultrasounds. A regular self-examination should be taught to the patients and ultrasonography should be performed in the follow-up of the patients especially for inserted devices during lactation period. Extrauterine IUDs can be successfully removed by laparotomy.

Intrauterine Device Perforation

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) have had a controversial history but are regarded as a safe, effective form of contraception for all women. IUDs have many benefits, but at the same time, risks and complications may occur in a small percentage of women. The case study first presents a patient with an IUD that perforated the uterus and then offers a discussion of the risks and benefits of IUD contraception.

Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: current perspectives

Uterine perforation is an uncommon complication of intrauterine device insertion, with an incidence of one in 1,000 insertions. Perforation may be complete, with the device totally in the abdominal cavity, or partial, with the device to varying degrees within the uterine wall. Some studies show a positive association between lactation and perforation, but a causal relationship has not been established. Very rarely, a device may perforate into bowel or the urinary tract. Perforated intrauterine devices can generally be removed successfully at laparoscopy.

Intrauterine contraception

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are effective, reversible forms of contraception with high patient satisfaction and continuation. IUDs can be safely used by most women and should be considered the first-line method of contraception for all women. This descriptive review will discuss the clinical issues associated with IUDs - including management of side effects, noncontraceptive uses and insertion and removal. When the burdens of cost are removed, women are more likely to select and IUDs. Health policy changes that increase insurance coverage for contraception will improve access to IUDs. IUDs remain an underutilized form of contraception in USA and efforts to improve availability and access to long-acting reversible contraception methods is needed to optimize their use.

Transmural migration and perforation of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system: a case report and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Uterine perforation is an uncommon yet well-known complication of copper intrauterine devices and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (IUS). While initial extrauterine placement at the time of insertion is felt to be the cause of perforation in most cases, some hypothesize that delayed transmural migration and subsequent perforation can occur with slightly malpositioned or even properly placed devices.

CASE

A 46-year-old female had a 52-mg levonorgestrel IUS inserted for menstrual management and contraception. We arranged a follow-up ultrasound as the uterus was enlarged on bimanual examination and the cavity sounded to 11cm. This ultrasound was completed 6days after insertion and reported the IUS to be in the "upper uterine cavity". Over time, transmural displacement and perforation of the horizontal arms of the device occurred. Computed tomography scans performed over 2years for nongynecologic indications document this gradual migration. A retrospective review of initial ultrasound images showed no evidence of uterine defect, embedment or perforation but the cavity length did appear to be less than 11cm.

CONCLUSIONS

While initial extrauterine placement at the time of insertion is the most common mechanism of perforation, delayed transmural migration is another mechanism that can occur.

IUD String Perforation Through Anterior Cervix: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine devices are increasingly the preferred method of contraception chosen by Canadian women. IUD strings are commonly not visible at follow-up, but rarely are visible yet not located within the endocervical canal. We report a case of IUD strings perforating the ectocervix.

CASE

An asymptomatic, 26-year-old woman presented for removal of her levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, over a year following insertion of the device. Upon examination the IUD strings were found to be emerging from within the cervical tissue, 10 mm above the external os.

CONCLUSION

We discuss removal techniques, review the literature, and examine possible reasons for this presentation. These techniques may interest a range of practitioners managing contraceptive care for women.

Uterine perforation in an adolescent using an intrauterine device with memory function: a case report and review of the published work

Intrauterine devices (IUD) are the most common method of reversible birth control used worldwide. Adolescents infrequently have uterine perforation caused by IUD, hampering both the diagnosis and treatment. Herein, we report a case of uterine perforation in an 18-year-old primipara after insertion of an IUD that possessed memory function (AiMu MCu). The patient presented with vomiting and abdominal pain after insertion of an AiMu MCu IUD, was treated via laparoscopy and had a full recovery. The present case indicated that uterine perforation caused by an AiMu MCu IUD may occur as a rare complication and that uterine perforation can occur in an adolescent. Clinicians might consider a diagnosis of uterine perforation in an adolescent reporting vomiting and abdominal pain after IUD insertion. Laparoscopy could be a reasonable treatment option for such patients.

Missing IUD Despite Threads at the Cervix

Today, the intrauterine device (IUD) is by far the most popular form of long term reversible contraception in the world. Side effects from the IUD are minimal and complications are rare. Uterine perforation and migration of the IUD outside the uterine cavity are the most serious complications. Physician visualization and/or the patient feeling retrieval threads at the cervical os are confirmation that the IUD has not been expelled or migrated. We present a case of a perforated, intraperitoneal IUD with threads noted at the cervical os. Office removal was not possible using gentle traction on the threads. Multiple imaging and endoscopic modalities were used to try and locate the IUD including pelvic ultrasound, diagnostic hysteroscopy, cystoscopy, and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The studies gave conflicting results on location of the IUD. Ultimately, the missing IUD was removed via laparoscopy.

Contraceptive procedures

Although most women desire to control the size and spacing of their family, the rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States remains high, with approximately half of all pregnancies being unintended. Reducing unintended pregnancy is a national public health goal, and the increased use of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) (intrauterine devices and implants) can help meet this goal. LARCs are among the most effective forms of contraception available. There are few contraindications to their use, and insertion and removal are straightforward procedures that are well tolerated in the outpatient office setting.

Understanding benefits and addressing misperceptions and barriers to intrauterine device access among populations in the United States

Three intrauterine devices (IUDs), one copper and two containing the progestin levonorgestrel, are available for use in the United States. IUDs offer higher rates of contraceptive efficacy than nonlong-acting methods, and several studies have demonstrated higher satisfaction rates and continuation rates of any birth control method. This efficacy is not affected by age or parity. The safety of IUDs is well studied, and the risks of pelvic inflammatory disease, perforation, expulsion, and ectopic pregnancy are all of very low incidence. Noncontraceptive benefits include decreased menstrual blood loss, improved dysmenorrhea, improved pelvic pain associated with endometriosis, and protection of the endometrium from hyperplasia. The use of IUDs is accepted in patients with multiple medical problems who may have contraindications to other birth control methods. Yet despite well-published data, concerns and misperceptions still persist, especially among younger populations and nulliparous women. Medical governing bodies advocate for use of IUDs in these populations, as safety and efficacy is unchanged, and IUDs have been shown to decrease unintended pregnancies. Dispersion of accurate information among patients and practitioners is needed to further increase the acceptability and use of IUDs.