BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of postpartum levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) placement on the postpartum ward. STUDY DESIGN: This case-series study took place in a teaching hospital in North Carolina. Women were followed for 6 months, and data on method satisfaction, study design satisfaction and expulsion were collected. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Forty women enrolled. Twenty-nine women (73%) received the LNG-IUS at a median of 20 h (range 7-48 h) after delivery, and all reported that they would recommend this method of contraception to a friend. Eleven women had a spontaneous expulsion (38%; 95% confidence interval 21, 58). CONCLUSION: Placement of LNG-IUS more than 6 h postpartum was acceptable to women in this study. The expulsion rate of 38% had statistical instability and should be interpreted with caution. However, our report may assist with individual counseling of women interested in postpartum LNG-IUS placement, or in future study designs. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of postpartum levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) placement on the postpartum ward. STUDY DESIGN: This case-series study took place in a teaching hospital in North Carolina. Women were followed for 6 months, and data on method satisfaction, study design satisfaction and expulsion were collected. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Forty women enrolled. Twenty-nine women (73%) received the LNG-IUS at a median of 20 h (range 7-48 h) after delivery, and all reported that they would recommend this method of contraception to a friend. Eleven women had a spontaneous expulsion (38%; 95% confidence interval 21, 58). CONCLUSION: Placement of LNG-IUS more than 6 h postpartum was acceptable to women in this study. The expulsion rate of 38% had statistical instability and should be interpreted with caution. However, our report may assist with individual counseling of women interested in postpartum LNG-IUS placement, or in future study designs. Copyright Â
Authors: Shawn E Gurtcheff; David K Turok; Greg Stoddard; Patricia A Murphy; Mark Gibson; Kirtly P Jones Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Joshua D Dahlke; Eric R Terpstra; Abigail M Ramseyer; Jeanne M Busch; Thomas Rieg; Everett F Magann Journal: Contraception Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Beatrice A Chen; Matthew F Reeves; Jennifer L Hayes; Heather L Hohmann; Lisa K Perriera; Mitchell D Creinin Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Sarah H Averbach; Yokabed Ermias; Gary Jeng; Kathryn M Curtis; Maura K Whiteman; Erin Berry-Bibee; Denise J Jamieson; Polly A Marchbanks; Naomi K Tepper; Tara C Jatlaoui Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 8.661