JCOGP
Journal of Controversies in Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics

As of January 2023, our "Journal of Controversies Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics" has been published under the Medihealth Academy to publish all articles, reviews and case reports on Pediatrics, especially in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology. In order to facilitate the citation of the articles, to take our place in internationally respected indexes and to reach a wider readership, we will pay attention to the fact that our article language is only English in terms of acceptance.

eISSN: 2980-0579
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Online Manuscript System

Index
Original Article
The management of the malposition of intrauterine devices at the tertiary center
Abstract
Aims: The malposition of intrauterine devices (IUD) is a major problem in contraception and this study aims to evaluate the surgical procedures used in the management of these cases.
Methods: Patients who were operated on for malposition of copper T IUD between 2018-2021 were evaluated retrospectively. The cases were analyzed in 4 groups as followed; instrumental removal, hysteroscopic (H/S), laparoscopic (L/S), and laparotomic (LPT) procedure. The groups were compared in age, obstetric history, IUD insertion time, and intraoperative outcomes.
Results: There were a total of 39 cases and the groups consisted of instrumental removal (n=8), H/S (n=24), L/S (n=6), and LPT (n=1) procedure. In the H/S group, mean age (44 ±10) and duration of IUD use (10.1 ±7.5 years) were found to be significantly higher than the other groups (p=0.03 and p=0.001 ). Six cases (25%) in the H/S group IUD was in the uterine cavity while in 5 (20.8%) it was embedded in the endometrium and myometrium. In the L/S group, the duration of IUD use was shorter (1.3 ± 0.8 years) and the mean age (29±10) was lower and all cases were managed laparoscopically except in one case that was extracted after conversion to laparotomy.
Conclusion: Advanced age and prolonged IUD use are risk factors for embedded of the IUD in the uterine cavity in the hysteroscopy group, however, IUDs that reach the abdomen by ruptured uterus are detected at younger ages and earlier in IUD use, and minimally invasive methods are eligible surgical procedures for these cases.

Keywords : IUD, malposition, perforation, hysteroscopy, laparoscopy

Download Article


1. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. (2019). 2018Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Hacettepe UniversityInstitute of Population Studies, T.R. Presidency of Turkey Directorateof Strategy and Budget and TÜBİTAK, Ankara, Turkey. http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/eng/tdhs2018/TDHS_2018_main_report.pdf
2. Braaten KP, Benson CB, Maurer R, Goldberg AB. Malpositioned intrauterinecontraceptive devices: risk factors, outcomes, and future pregnancies. ObstetGynecol. 2011;118(5):1014-1020. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182316308
3. Shinichiro S, Wakimoto Y, Kamei H, Fukui A, Shibahara H. Removal ofa retroperitoneal foreign body by laparoscopic surgery. Gynecol MinimInvasive Ther. 2019;8(2):86-88. doi:10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_84_18
4. Rowlands S, Oloto E, Horwell DH. Intrauterine devices and risk ofuterine perforation: current perspectives. Open Access J Contracept.2016;7:19-32. Published 2016 Mar 16. doi:10.2147/OAJC.S85546
5. Fadiloglu S, Dilbaz B, Fadiloglu E, Dilbaz S. Relationship betweencopper IUD complications and ultrasonographic findings. ArchGynecol Obstet. 2018;297(4):989-996. doi:10.1007/s00404-018-4711-y
6. Ali MM, Sadler RK, Cleland J, Ngo TD, Shah IH. 2011. Long-termcontraceptive protection, discontinuation and switching behaviour.Intrauterine device (IUD) use dynamics in, 14. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/family_planning/Long_term_contraceptive_protection_behaviour.pdf
7. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, Fifth edition, 3 February2015 WHO Guideline https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/mec-app/en/
8. Golightly E, Gebbie AE. Low-lying or malpositioned intrauterinedevices and systems. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2014;40(2):108-112. doi:10.1136/jfprhc-2013-100684
9. Anteby E, Revel A, Ben-Chetrit A, Rosen B, Tadmor O, Yagel S.Intrauterine device failure: relation to its location within the uterinecavity. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81(1):112-114.
10. Ireland LD, Allen RH. Pain management for gynecologic proceduresin the office. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016;71(2):89-98. doi:10.1097/OGX.0000000000000272
11. Dina B, Peipert LJ, Zhao Q, Peipert JF. Anticipated pain as a predictorof discomfort with intrauterine device placement. Am J Obstet Gynecol.2018;218(2):236.e1-236.e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.017
12. Asto MRD, Habana MAE. Hysteroscopic-guided removal of retainedintrauterine device: experience at an academic tertiary hospital. GynecolMinim Invasive Ther. 2018;7(2):56-60. doi:10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_11_18
13. Trivedi SS, Goel M, Jain S. Hysteroscopic management of intra-uterine devices with lost strings. Br J Fam Plann. 2000;26(4):229-230.doi:10.1783/147118900101194652
14. Istanbulluoglu MO, Ozcimen EE, Ozturk B, Uckuyu A, Cicek T, GonenM. Bladder perforation related to intrauterine device. J Chin Med Assoc.2008;71(4):207-209. doi:10.1016/S1726-4901(08)70105-9
15. Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, Lähteenmäki P, Heikinheimo O.Intrauterine contraception: incidence and factors associated with uterineperforation--a population-based study. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2658-2663.doi:10.1093/humrep/des246
16. Harrison-Woolrych M, Ashton J, Coulter D. Uterine perforation onintrauterine device insertion: is the incidence higher than previously reported?.Contraception. 2003;67(1):53-56. doi:10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00417-1
17. Barnett C, Moehner S, Do Minh T, Heinemann K. Perforation riskand intra-uterine devices: results of the EURAS-IUD 5-year extensionstudy. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22(6):424-428. doi:10.1080/13625187.2017.1412427
18. Gerkowicz SA, Fiorentino DG, Kovacs AP, Arheart KL, Verma U.Uterine structural abnormality and intrauterine device malposition:analysis of ultrasonographic and demographic variables of 517patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(2):183.e1-183.e8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.122
19. Çintesun FNİ, Çintesun E, Esenkaya Ü, Günenc O. Uterine dimensionsand intrauterine device malposition: can ultrasound predictdisplacement or expulsion before it happens?. Arch Gynecol Obstet.2020;302(5):1181-1187. doi:10.1007/s00404-020-05713-0
20. Cheung ML, Rezai S, Jackman JM, et al. Retained Intrauterine Device(IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature. Case RepObstet Gynecol. 2018;2018:9362962. doi:10.1155/2018/9362962
21. Mosley FR, Shahi N, Kurer MA. Elective surgical removal of migratedintrauterine contraceptive devices from within the peritonealcavity: a comparison between open and laparoscopic removal. JSLS.2012;16(2):236-241. doi:10.4293/108680812x13427982377265
22. Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Minh TD. Comparativecontraceptive effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing and copperintrauterine devices: the European Active Surveillance Study forIntrauterine Devices. Contraception. 2015;91(4):280-283. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.011
Article available in :
Volume 1, Issue 3, 2023
Page : 62-67
https://doi.org/10.51271/JCOGP-0014
Article Information
Received : 28 Haz 2023
Accepted : 25 Tem 2023
Published : 30 Tem 2023
Corresponding Author :

Arife Akay: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Etlik Zubeyde Hanim Maternity, Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkiye

[email protected]
Citation : Akay A, Dilbaz B, Dilbaz S, Engin Üstün Y. The management of the malposition of intrauterine devices at the tertiary center J Controv Obstetr Gynecol Ped. 2023;1(3):62-67.

Read: 644
Download : 872
Cited: 1
_Footer