Literature DB >> 22643520

Laparoscopic removal of a copper intrauterine device from the sigmoid colon.

M Y Zeino1, E D Wietfeldt, V Advani, S Ahad, C Younkin, I Hassan.   

Abstract

IUD translocation to the sigmoid colon after uterine perforation is a rare but serious event. Removal of the IUD in such a situation has been recommended because of the risk of complication, such as fistula formation and colonic perforation. We present the case of a 43-year-old female with a copper T380A IUD embedded in the sigmoid colon, which was removed with minimally invasive techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22643520      PMCID: PMC3340974          DOI: 10.4293/108680811X13176785204661

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JSLS        ISSN: 1086-8089            Impact factor:   2.172


INTRODUCTION

Uterine perforation is among the most serious complications associated with the insertion of intrauterine devices (IUD). The incidence of uterine perforation has been reported to be between 0.05% and 0.13% or 1.3 to 1.6 per 1000 insertions.[1,2] The incidence of this complication depends on various factors, such as the type of IUD, the timing of insertion related to the termination of pregnancy, the position and anatomy of the uterus, insertion technique, and the experience of the operator inserting the IUD.[1] Uterine perforation can occur iatrogenically during the insertion by the applied mechanical force (primary perforation) or spontaneously afterward (secondary perforation). Fifteen percent of uterine perforations involve adjacent organs, usually the small or large intestines.[2] IUD-related complications involving the intestines include obstruction, perforation, ischemia, mesenteric injury, stricture and fistulae.[1] We describe a case of removal of a copper T380A IUD embedded in the sigmoid colon by using laparoscopic techniques.

CASE REPORT

A 43-year-old, gravida 4, para 4 female had an IUD placed 3 years earlier after her fourth vaginal delivery. She had a lifelong history of back pain that had worsened lately, for which she underwent a pelvic ultrasound that failed to identify her IUD in the uterus. A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis was performed that showed the IUD in an extrauterine position with the stem embedded in the sigmoid colon wall (. Bimanual examination revealed a normal-sized uterus without palpable adnexal masses. Part of the IUD was felt through the vaginal wall in the posterior cul-de-sac and was fixed. A flexible sigmoidoscopy was performed, and the stem of the IUD was visualized within the colonic lumen (. The patient was electively taken to the operating room for attempted laparoscopic removal after a mechanical bowel preparation. Intraoperatively, dense adhesions were seen in the posterior cul-de-sac between the posterior aspect of the uterus and the anterior aspect of the sigmoid colon near the recto sigmoid junction which were taken down using blunt dissection with an atraumatic grasper until the IUD wings embedded in the colon wall were identified (. The IUD was then removed from the colon and subsequently from the abdominal cavity through the laparoscopic 5-mm port in a similar technique of IUD removal from the uterine cavity, by grasping and pulling on the string and allowing the T wings to bend inside the port. The resultant colotomy was repaired laparoscopically intracorporeally by using 2 interrupted 2-0 silk sutures (. A flexible sigmoidoscopy was then performed and the colon clamped laparoscopically with an atraumatic grasper proximal to the repair site and insufflated with air. The repair site was submerged under water and no air leak was seen. The patient had an uncomplicated postoperative course and was discharged on day 2 from the hospital and has done well 12 months postoperatively. CT scan demonstrating the extrauterine position of the IUD in the colonic lumen. (solid white arrow-head). Endoscopic view of the IUD within the colonic lumen. Intraoperative laparoscopic view of the IUD embedded in the colonic wall. Intraoperative view of the colonic repair following removal of the IUD.

DISCUSSION

Most uterine perforations are asymptomatic and therefore unrecognized at the time of insertion.[3] Nonoperative management of a migrating IUD has been recommended in the past because of the morbidity associated with its removal.[3] However, this complication can lead to pain, fibrosis, and adhesion formation and in some situations may result in penetration into adjacent organs including the urinary bladder, sigmoid colon, appendix, and small bowel.[3,4] Perforation into the bowel can result in abscess formation, intestinal ischemia, or volvulus.[3] Therefore, it has been suggested that surgical exploration and IUD retrieval should be the primary therapeutic approach for patients with an IUD-related complication.[3,4] Arslan et al[1] in a review of the literature identified 47 cases of uterine perforation complicated by intestinal penetration. The Copper-7 and copper-T IUD accounted for half the reported cases of intestinal perforation in the literature.[1] IUD-related intestinal perforations primarily involved the sigmoid colon, followed by the small intestine and rectum.[1] Most commonly, patients found to have an IUD partially or completely embedded in the colonic wall were managed with a laparotomy.[1,4] With advances in laparoscopy, these situations are being increasingly managed with minimally invasive techniques. Previous reports of laparoscopic exploration and removal of translocated IUD from the sigmoid colon have had variable clinical outcomes.[4] Inceboz et al[5] reported the laparoscopic removal of an IUD in the sigmoid colon that resulted in a sigmoid perforation requiring a temporary colostomy. Gungor et al[6] and Baakdah et al[2] reported removal of partially embedded IUDs in the sigmoid colon without any adverse consequences. Recently Chi et al[4] removed an IUD that had completely perforated into the sigmoid colon by performing a laparoscopic-assisted resection of the involved segment of the sigmoid colon. They recommended that partial penetration of an IUD into the colonic wall may be removed laparoscopically with intracorporeal repair of the colonic defect.[4] It was also suggested by them that a full-thickness perforation by an IUD into the colonic wall should be managed by resection of the involved colon with primary anastomosis.[4] In our case, we laparoscopically removed the IUD that had completely perforated through the colonic wall into the lumen and intracorporeally repaired the resultant colotomy, avoiding resecting the colon and avoiding the morbidity of not repairing the colotomy. There have been reports in the literature of removing IUDs that are embedded in the colonic wall and are visible within the colon lumen with a colonoscope.[7] The risk of using this approach is that without primarily repairing the colonic defect there can be intraperitoneal contamination from intestinal contents leading to abdominal sepsis and the possible need for an emergent laparotomy.[1] Therefore, we do not recommend this approach to managing IUDs completely perforating the colon wall. Our experience would suggest that full-thickness perforations of an IUD through the colonic wall can be safely managed without resecting the involved colon by using advanced laparoscopic techniques.

CONCLUSION

Use of proper technique in IUD insertion is important to avoid primary uterine perforation. However, spontaneous migration can occur rarely, and it is unpredictable. Use of imaging studies, such as ultrasound and CT scans, are essential to identify the location of the IUD. Removal of the IUD is indicated even in asymptomatic patients, and the use of minimally invasive procedures is feasible in select patients.
  7 in total

1.  Laparoscopic management of a translocated intrauterine device perforating the bowel.

Authors:  Mete Güngör; Murat Sönmezer; Cem Atabekoglu; Fïrat Ortaç
Journal:  J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc       Date:  2003-11

2.  Sigmoid penetration by an intrauterine device.

Authors:  Hanadi Baakdah; Antoine F Asswad; Togas Tulandi
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.137

3.  Laparoscopic removal of an intrauterine device perforating the sigmoid colon: a case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Esmond Chi; David Rosenfeld; Thomas P Sokol
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 0.688

4.  Migration of an intrauterine contraceptive device into the sigmoid colon.

Authors:  Rola S Al-Mukhtar; Jaber A Al-Ali; Maher M Amin; Basel M Al-Sumait
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.484

5.  Colon penetration by a copper intrauterine device: a case report with literature review.

Authors:  Anil Arslan; Mine Kanat-Pektas; Huseyin Yesilyurt; Umit Bilge
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 2.344

6.  Surgical removal of an intrauterine device perforating the sigmoid colon: a case report.

Authors:  Raul Mederos; Lynda Humaran; Donald Minervini
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 6.071

7.  Migration of an intrauterine contraceptive device to the sigmoid colon: a case report.

Authors:  U S Nceboz; H T Ozçakir; Y Uyar; H Cağlar
Journal:  Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 1.848

  7 in total
  10 in total

1.  Laparoscopic removal of an intrauterine device from the sigmoid colon.

Authors:  Fatih Şanlıkan; Oğuz Arslan; Muhittin Eftal Avcı; Ahmet Göçmen
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.088

2.  Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine.

Authors:  Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Tehilla Apfel; Rozhin Naghshizadian; John Morgan Cosgrove; Daniel T Farkas
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

3.  Ureteric Obstruction Caused by a Migrated Intrauterine Device.

Authors:  Xuesong Yang; Xi Duan; Tao Wu
Journal:  Urol Case Rep       Date:  2016-11-30

4.  Pelvic abscess complicating sigmoid colon perforation by migrating intrauterine device: A case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Omar Toumi; Houssem Ammar; Abdessalem Ghdira; Amine Chhaidar; Wided Trimech; Rahul Gupta; Randa Salem; Jamel Saad; Ibtissem Korbi; Mohamed Nasr; Faouzi Noomen; Mondher Golli; Khadija Zouari
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2017-10-27

Review 5.  Is It a "Colon Perforation"? A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Shuangshuang Lu; Xinyu Yao; Jun Shi; Jian Huang; Shaohua Zhuang; Junfang Ma; Yan Liu; Wei Zhang; Lifei Yu; Ping Zhu; Qiuwei Zhu; Ruxia Shi; Hong Zheng; Dong Shao; Yuyan Pan; Shizhen Bao; Li Qin; Lijie Huang; Wenjia Liu; Jin Huang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-03-10

6.  Sigmoid colocolic fistula caused by intrauterine device migration: a case report.

Authors:  Amila Weerasekera; Pravin Wijesinghe; Nilhan Nugaduwa
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2014-03-04

7.  Colouterine fistula after polymyomectomy: a case report.

Authors:  Jennifer Uzan; Martin Koskas; Pierre Fournier; Anne Laure Margulies; Dominique Luton; Chadi Yazbeck
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2014-06-18

8.  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 9.  Migration of a foreign body to the rectum: A case report and literature review.

Authors:  Hui Ye; Shujuan Huang; Qichang Zhou; Jie Yu; Changlei Xi; Longlei Cao; Peiyun Wang; Zhilin Gong
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  Chronic nodules of sigmoid perforation caused by incarcerated intrauterine contraception device.

Authors:  Xiaohui Huang; Rui Zhong; Liqin Zeng; Xuhui He; Qingshan Deng; Xiuhong Peng; Jieming Li; Xiping Luo
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 1.817

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.