Literature DB >> 21142273

Uterine perforation with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device: analysis of reports from four national pharmacovigilance centres.

Kees van Grootheest1, Bernhardt Sachs, Mira Harrison-Woolrych, Pia Caduff-Janosa, Eugène van Puijenbroek.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUD) are commonly used for contraception and other indications in many countries. National pharmacovigilance centres have been receiving reports from healthcare professionals and patients of uterine perforation associated with the use of these LNG-IUDs.
METHODS: National pharmacovigilance centres in the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and Germany did a search on their adverse drug reaction databases for reports of cases of uterine perforation after insertion of a LNG-IUD received between the introduction of the LNG-IUD onto the market in the late 1990s and 15 July 2007. The number of women affected and patient characteristics such as age, parity and breastfeeding status were examined. In addition, the method of detection of the perforation and the time until discovery of the perforation were analysed.
RESULTS: Between the introduction of the LNG-IUD onto the market in each country and 15 July 2007, 701 cases of uterine perforation with a LNG-IUD were reported; 8.5% of the perforations were detected at the time of insertion. Abdominal pain and control/check-up visits were the most common events that lead to the detection of a perforation. Of 462 women known to be parous, 192 (42%) were breastfeeding at the time the perforation was discovered.
CONCLUSIONS: Uterine perforations can be asymptomatic and may remain undetected for a long time after IUD insertion. Abdominal pain, control/check-up visits or changes in bleeding patterns are triggers for detection of perforation and should therefore be taken seriously.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21142273     DOI: 10.2165/11585050-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  19 in total

1.  Uterine perforation on intrauterine device insertion: is the incidence higher than previously reported?

Authors:  Mira Harrison-Woolrych; Janelle Ashton; David Coulter
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.375

2.  Insertion of the Multiload Cu375 intrauterine device; experience in over 16,000 New Zealand women.

Authors:  Mira Harrison-Woolrych; Janelle Ashton; David Coulter
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.375

3.  Performance of the copper T-380A intrauterine device in breastfeeding women.

Authors:  I C Chi; M Potts; L R Wilkens; C B Champion
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 3.375

Review 4.  Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for symptomatic endometriosis following surgery.

Authors:  A M Abou-Setta; H G Al-Inany; C M Farquhar
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

Review 5.  Complete and partial uterine perforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterine devices. I. Classification, complications, mechanism, incidence, and missing string.

Authors:  D Zakin; W Z Stern; R Rosenblatt
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Surv       Date:  1981-07       Impact factor: 2.347

Review 6.  [Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (Mirena) and breast cancer: what do we learn from literature for clinical practice?].

Authors:  G Boutet
Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Fertil       Date:  2006-11-07

7.  Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20 micrograms/d and the copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: a multicenter study. International Committee for Contraception Research (ICCR).

Authors:  I Sivin; J Stern
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 8.  Hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs) versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy.

Authors:  R French; H Van Vliet; F Cowan; D Mansour; S Morris; D Hughes; A Robinson; T Proctor; C Summerbell; S Logan; F Helmerhorst; J Guillebaud
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2004

9.  Use of the New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme to study the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (Mirena).

Authors:  Lifeng Zhou; Mira Harrison-Woolrych; David M Coulter
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.890

10.  Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey.

Authors:  K Andersson; E Ryde-Blomqvist; K Lindell; V Odlind; I Milsom
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.375

View more
  5 in total

1.  Restoration of fertility after removal of extrauterine mirena coil: a case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Smriti R C Bhatta; Radwan Faraj
Journal:  Case Rep Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-08-16

Review 2.  Intrauterine contraception after cesarean section and during lactation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Norman D Goldstuck; Petrus S Steyn
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2013-12-04

Review 3.  Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: current perspectives.

Authors:  Sam Rowlands; Emeka Oloto; David H Horwell
Journal:  Open Access J Contracept       Date:  2016-03-16

4.  Sigmoid colon translocation of an intrauterine device misdiagnosed as a colonic polyp: A case report.

Authors:  Xin-Xin Zhou; Mo-Sang Yu; Meng-Li Gu; Wei-Xiang Zhong; Hong-Ru Wu; Feng Ji; Hang-Hai Pan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 5.  Prenatal contraceptive counseling and method provision after childbirth.

Authors:  Anita L Nelson
Journal:  Open Access J Contracept       Date:  2015-05-13
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.