Literature DB >> 29554605

Factors associated with removal difficulties of etonogestrel-containing contraceptive implants (Nexplanon®).

Julien Chevreau1, David Krief2, Osama Abou Arab2, Mickaël Zitoun2, Arthur Foulon2, Fabrice Sergent2, Jean Gondry2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Nexplanon®'s new applicator system was designed to limit deep implant placements, known to lead to difficult removals. However, removal difficulties still exist and induce specific and potentially severe complications. Our objective was to identify risk factors associated with difficult removals. STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective single-center study was performed from January 2015 to December 2016. Participants were divided into two groups depending on whether implant was removed during a standard ("standard removal" group) or difficult consultation ("difficult removal" group) after an initial failed removal attempt.
RESULTS: The difficult and standard removal groups comprised 63 and 660 women, respectively. In a univariate analysis, significant intergroup differences were found for weight gain (3.7 ± 7.3 kg in the difficult removal group vs. 1.3 ± 5.1 in the standard removal group), proportion of placements performed in private practice (66.7% vs. 19.8%, respectively), and duration of Nexplanon® placement (29.4 ± 11.3 months versus 26 ± 13.6, respectively). We also reported more frequent sub-brachial fascia placements when Nexplanon® was implanted by a private practitioner (7.5% cases versus 0.4% in hospital implantations, p < 0.001). In a stepwise binary logistic regression analysis, placement by a private practitioner, weight gain >1 kg since placement, and duration of implant placement >25 months were confirmed as independent risk factors for removal difficulties (respective risk ratios 7.63 [95% IC 4.35-13.33], 2.10 [1.18-3.70], and 1.91 [1.06-3.44], p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of these three simple parameters might help physicians to identify "at risk-patients", and suggest a specific consultation before risking a potentially hazardous removal (with its associated, specific morbidity). Our results also emphasize importance of training in implant insertion.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contraception; Contraceptive implant; Difficulty; Nexplanon(®); Removal

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29554605     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.03.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol        ISSN: 0301-2115            Impact factor:   2.435


  4 in total

1.  Migration of etonogestrel contraceptive implants: Implications for difficult removals services need in southern Africa.

Authors:  G A Petro; T Spence; J-P Du Plessis; A M Gertz; C Morroni
Journal:  S Afr Med J       Date:  2019-07-26

2.  Difficult etonogestrel implant removals in South Africa: A review of 74 referred cases.

Authors:  Gregory Petro; Trevi Spence; Malika Patel; Alida M Gertz; Chelsea Morroni
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 3.375

3.  Characteristics of Patients Requiring Surgical Removal of Subdermal Contraceptive Implants: A Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Leila Katabi; Erica Stevens; Mona Ascha; Kavita Arora
Journal:  Open Access J Contracept       Date:  2022-08-08

Review 4.  Contraceptive subcutaneous device migration: what does an orthopaedic surgeon need to know? A case report and literature review.

Authors:  Fabrizio Rivera; Andrea Bianciotto
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2020-05-30
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.