Literature DB >> 12204783

Extrauterine mislocated IUD: is surgical removal mandatory?

Ofer Markovitch1, Zvi Klein, Yariv Gidoni, Michael Holzinger, Yoram Beyth.   

Abstract

The incidence of intrauterine device perforation is 0.87 per 1000 insertions. An intrauterine device (IUD) may perforate through the uterine wall into the pelvic or abdominal cavity or into adjacent organs. The accepted treatment for displaced IUDs is surgical removal because of the putative risk of adhesion formation or of damage to the intestine or urinary bladder. The purpose of this article is to present three cases of IUD perforation where surgical removal may not have been necessary. In all three cases, the IUD was removed by laparoscopy. No adhesions were found in any of the patients. Criteria for the surgical removal of a displaced IUD, as a result of uterine perforation, should be re-evaluated. Whilst surgical procedures to remove a misplaced IUD must be performed on symptomatic patients, asymptomatic patients, under certain circumstances, may benefit from conservative management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12204783     DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00327-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contraception        ISSN: 0010-7824            Impact factor:   3.375


  28 in total

1.  Asymptomatic far-migration of an intrauterine device into the abdominal cavity: A rare entity.

Authors:  Ozgu Aydogdu; Huseyin Pulat
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Incidental detection of a transmigrated intrauterine device.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Levsky; Mark Herskovits
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2005-05-14

Review 3.  Intravesical Cu-T emigration: an atypical and infrequent cause of vesical calculus.

Authors:  Iqbal Singh
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Mislocated extrauterine intrauterine devices: Diagnosis and surgical management.

Authors:  Mustafa Kaplanoğlu; Mehmet Bülbül; Tuncay Yüce; Dilek Kaplanoğlu; Meral Aban
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2015-06-01

5.  Intrauterine device migration to the urinary bladder causing sexual dysfunction: a case report.

Authors:  K Dimitropoulos; K Skriapas; G Karvounis; V Tzortzis
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.471

6.  Chronic kidney disease after vesico-vaginal stone formation around a migrated intrauterine device.

Authors:  R Karsmakers; A E Weis-Potters; Guido Buijs; E B Joustra
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2010-07-23

7.  Intravesical migration of an intrauterine device detected in a pregnant woman.

Authors:  Migraci Tosun; Handan Celik; Erhan Yavuz; Mehmet B Cetinkaya
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Translocation of an intrauterine contraceptive device: incidental finding in the rectosigmoid colon.

Authors:  R Vilallonga; N Rodriguez; M Vilchez; M Armengol
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2010-06-09

9.  Urinary complications of migrated intrauterine contraceptive device.

Authors:  Ahmed S El-Hefnawy; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Yaser Osman; Mahmoud A Bazeed
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-07-14

10.  Intrauterine device embedded into the bladder wall with stone formation: laparoscopic removal is a minimally invasive alternative to open surgery.

Authors:  Dong Gil Shin; Tae Nam Kim; Wan Lee
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.