Continuing need for and provision of a service for non-standard implant removal

Nonpalpable implant removals at centre of experience in France: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE(S)

Management and localisation strategies to remove nonpalpable contraceptive implants may be difficult. We aimed to evaluate our imaging modalities to identify deep implant and patient outcomes related to removal.

STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective study, we reviewed all cases referred to our specialised centre for nonpalpable contraceptive implants from January 2018 to August 2022.

RESULTS

Out of the cohort studied, 47 female subjects exhibited nonpalpable implants. The implant was nonpalpable for thirty-six patients (76,6%) immediately after the insertion whereas it was not palpable several months after the insertion for eleven patients (23.4%). Twelve patients (25.5%) had one or more failed removal attempts before referral.All 47 implants were successfully visualised via ultrasound in the upper arm: 40 implants (85.1%) were located in the subdermal tissue, 4 (8.5%) were intrafascial and 3 (6.4%) were intramuscular. Depth of the implant was 4.0 mm [1.7 - 12.0]. No clinical factors were statistically associated with differences in depth or location (subdermal vs subfascial). Removal procedures were mainly under local anaesthesia in 74.5% of cases in an outpatient setting. There were two Clavien-Dindo grade 1 complications (one case of cutaneous scar dehiscence and one transient postoperative neuropathic complaint in the upper arm resolved within 3 months under analgetics).

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of deep implants requires following the ultrasound modality protocol. Ultrasound detection makes easy and safe implant removal. Training programs for the insertion as well as for the removal of correct and incorrect inserted implants should be continued and developed all around the world.

Facility readiness to remove subdermal contraceptive implants in 6 sub-Saharan African countries

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to estimate the proportion of health facilities without the capability to remove contraceptive implants and those that have the capability to insert them and to understand facility-level barriers to implant removal across 6 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

STUDY DESIGN

Using facility data from the Performance Monitoring for Action in Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda from 2020, we examined the extent to which implant-providing facilities (1) lacked necessary supplies to remove implants, (2) did not have a provider trained to remove implants onsite, (3) could not remove deeply placed implants onsite, and (4) reported any of the above barriers to implant removal. We calculated the proportion of facilities that report each barrier, stratifying by facility type.

RESULTS

Between 31% and 58% of implant-providing facilities reported at least 1 barrier to implant removal in each country (6 sub-Saharan African countries). Lack of trained providers was the least common barrier to implant removal (0%-17% of facilities), whereas lack of supplies (17%-44% of facilities) and the inability to remove a deeply placed implant (16%-42%) represented more common obstacles to removal. Blades and forceps were commonly missing supplies across all 6 countries. Barriers to implant removal were less commonly reported at hospitals than at lower-level facilities in all countries except Burkina Faso.

CONCLUSION

This multicountry analysis showed that facility-level barriers to contraceptive implant removal are widespread among facilities that offer implant insertion. By preventing users from being able to discontinue their implants on request, these barriers pose a threat to contraceptive autonomy and reproductive health.

Nexplanon removal from intramuscular implantation in biceps: case report

Contraceptive implant devices are relatively safe devices, but complications arise when implants become nonpalpable, and cannot be safely removed. In this case report, we describe the location of an implant in the subfascial plane of the upper arm, the diagnostic imaging findings we encountered during the workup, and the procedure necessary to remove it. We demonstrated that if the device is in close proximity to the fascia, it may be difficult to distinguish from the fascia on magnetic resonance imaging. Nonetheless, fluoroscopy and ultrasound easily distinguished the device from the surrounding tissue and allowed localization intraoperatively.

Peripheral nerve injury with Nexplanon removal: case report and review of the literature

Background

Implantable devices offer convenient, long-acting, and reversible contraception. Injury to the peripheral nerves and blood vessels have been reported as rare complications of implantation and extraction.

Case presentation

We present a case of ulnar nerve injury in a 21-year-old woman from attempted in-office removal of a deeply implanted Nexplanon® device. The injury resulted in an ulnar nerve palsy requiring surgical exploration, neuroma excision, and sural nerve cable grafting.

Conclusions

In-office attempts to remove contraceptive implants that are deep or have migrated can cause iatrogenic nerve injury. Devices that are non-palpable, deep, or migrated should be imaged before formal surgical exploration and removal. Any patient with neurologic symptoms after placement or after attempted removal requires prompt diagnosis and referral to a peripheral nerve surgeon.

Accessible Contraceptive Implant Removal Services: An Essential Element of Quality Service Delivery and Scale-Up

Use of contraceptive implants has surged in recent years, yet emerging data show a deficit of service delivery capacity and coverage for implant removals. The number of projected removals needed in the 69 FP2020 focus countries in 2018 (4.9–5.8 million) is more than twice that estimated for 2015 (2.2 million). We must proactively plan and execute high-quality implant removal services in order to fulfill the exceptional promise of implants in meeting client needs and advancing toward FP2020 goals.

Removal of a Nexplanon implant located in the biceps muscle using a combination of ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance

Despite modifications to avoid deep insertions, clinical experience with Nexplanon demonstrates that deep insertions still occur. We present a case of a Nexplanon found in the biceps muscle that was successfully removed with a small incision using a combination of ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance by interventional radiologists.