Literature DB >> 22015868

Malpositioned intrauterine contraceptive devices: risk factors, outcomes, and future pregnancies.

Kari P Braaten1, Carol B Benson, Rie Maurer, Alisa B Goldberg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess possible risk factors, management, and outcomes for women with malpositioned intrauterine contraception devices (IUDs).
METHODS: This retrospective case-control study compared 182 women with malpositioned IUDs shown by ultrasonography at a single institution from 2003 to 2008 with 182 women with properly positioned IUDs. We evaluated whether insertion at 6-9 weeks postpartum, postabortion placement, breastfeeding, type of IUD, pregnancy history, leiomyomas, suspected adenomyosis, and indication for placement were associated with malpositioning. Our study had 70-99% power to detect whether postpartum placement was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 2-3.
RESULTS: Malpositioned devices were noted on 10.4% of ultrasonography scans among women with IUDs having pelvic ultrasonography for any indication. Most malpositioned devices (73.1%) were noted to be in the lower uterine segment or cervix. Insertion of IUDs at 6-9 weeks postpartum was not associated with malpositioning (OR 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-2.63). Among other possible risk factors examined, suspected adenomyosis was associated with IUD malpositioning (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.08-8.52), whereas prior vaginal delivery (OR 0.53 95% CI 0.32-0.87) and private insurance (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.59) were protective. Approximately two-thirds (66.5%) of malpositioned devices were removed by health care providers. There were more pregnancies within 2 years among those in the case group than those in the control group (19.2% compared with 10.5%, P=.046). All pregnancies were the result of IUD expulsion or removal, and none occurred with a malpositioned IUD known to be in situ.
CONCLUSION: Malpositioning of IUDs does not appear to be associated with insertion at 6-9 weeks postpartum. Women with malpositioned IUDs are more likely to become pregnant because of IUD removal without initiation of another highly effective contraceptive method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22015868     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182316308

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  15 in total

1.  Association of the Position of the Copper T 380A as Determined by the Ultrasonography Following its Insertion in the Immediate Postpartum Period with the Subsequent Complications: An Observational Study.

Authors:  Swati Gupta; Shashiprateek Malik; Renuka Sinha; Saritha Shyamsunder; M K Mittal
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2014-04-23

2.  Clinical Outcome of Cu-T 375 PPIUCD by Novel Dedicated Inserter Technique.

Authors:  Richa Singh; Poonam Yadav; Shilpi Sweta; Saroj Singh; Asha Nigam; Hari Singh
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2021-03-15

3.  Uterine dimensions and intrauterine device malposition: can ultrasound predict displacement or expulsion before it happens?

Authors:  Feyza Nur İncesu Çintesun; Ersin Çintesun; Ümmügülsüm Esenkaya; Oğuzhan Günenc
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 2.344

4.  A Decision Analysis Model of 1-Year Effectiveness of Intended Postplacental Compared With Intended Delayed Postpartum Intrauterine Device Insertion.

Authors:  Sarita Sonalkar; Tegan Hunter; Elizabeth P Gurney; Arden McAllister; Courtney A Schreiber
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Intrauterine Device Expulsion After Postpartum Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tara C Jatlaoui; Maura K Whiteman; Gary Jeng; Naomi K Tepper; Erin Berry-Bibee; Denise J Jamieson; Polly A Marchbanks; Kathryn M Curtis
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Incarcerated and Transmigrated Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices Managed at a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital of East Delhi: A 5-Year Retrospective Analysis.

Authors:  Richa Sharma; Amita Suneja
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2018-07-27

7.  Precision intrauterine contraception may significantly increase continuation of use: a review of long-term clinical experience with frameless copper-releasing intrauterine contraception devices.

Authors:  Dirk Wildemeersch; Ansgar Pett; Sohela Jandi; Thomas Hasskamp; Patrick Rowe; Marc Vrijens
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2013-04-30

Review 8.  Ultrasonography of intrauterine devices.

Authors:  Kristina M Nowitzki; Matthew L Hoimes; Byron Chen; Larry Z Zheng; Young H Kim
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2015-04-01

9.  Intrauterine contraceptive device embedded in the omentum - case report.

Authors:  Piotr Zolnierczyk; Krzysztof Cendrowski; Wlodzimierz Sawicki
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2015-12-01

10.  Intraperitoneal migration of an intrauterine device (IUD): A case report.

Authors:  Hicham Benaguida; Hamza Kiram; Ely Cheikh Telmoudi; Btissam Ouafidi; Mustapha Benhessou; Mohamed Ennachit; Mohamed Elkarroumi
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2021-07-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.