Literature DB >> 8934062

The use of vaginal ultrasound to identify copper T IUDs at high risk of expulsion.

C A Petta1, D Faúndes, E Pimentel, J Diaz, L Bahamondes.   

Abstract

A total of 235 women who had a TCu 380A IUD inserted had a vaginal ultrasound scan performed to identify if the IUDs were correctly placed in the uterine fundus. Women identified as having a misplaced IUD had it removed. The remaining women were compared to 201 women who had an IUD inserted and had no ultrasound evaluation, matched by age and parity. Women were followed-up for one year. Gross cumulative discontinuation rates and continuation rates were calculated by life table analysis. Comparison between groups was done by the Gehan test. The study group had 34 IUDs removed because they were misplaced according to the established criteria. The expulsion rate was significantly higher in the control group, also influencing the continuation rate which was lower in the same group. Of the 34 women who had their IUD removed because it was not correctly placed, only 22 requested and had another IUD inserted. The removal of IUD determined by an ultrasound to be incorrectly placed significantly decreased expulsion rates. However, many IUDs may have been removed unnecessarily, probably resulting in many women not returning to the clinic or deciding to use another contraceptive method.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Americas; Brazil; Comparative Studies; Contraception; Contraception Continuation; Contraception Termination; Contraceptive Methods; Contraceptive Usage; Control Groups; Developing Countries; Family Planning; Iud; Iud Expulsion; Iud, Copper Releasing; Latin America; Matched Groups--women; Research Methodology; Research Report; South America; Studies; Ultrasonics

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8934062     DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(96)00181-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contraception        ISSN: 0010-7824            Impact factor:   3.375


  7 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.  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

Review 3.  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

4.  A proposed classification for intrauterine device position:the Tal-Reeves classification.

Authors:  Michael G Tal; Matthew F Reeves; Mark J Hathaway; Juan M Canela; Bob Katz
Journal:  BMJ Sex Reprod Health       Date:  2022-06-13

5.  Looking beyond vesical calculi.

Authors:  B Sureka; M K Mittal; M Sinha; B B Thukral
Journal:  Indian J Nephrol       Date:  2014-01

6.  Expulsion and continuation rates after postabortion insertion of framed IUDs versus frameless IUDs - review of the literature.

Authors:  Dirk Wildemeersch; Norman D Goldstuck
Journal:  Open Access J Contracept       Date:  2015-07-09

7.  Intrauterine device quo vadis? Why intrauterine device use should be revisited particularly in nulliparous women?

Authors:  Dirk Wildemeersch; Norman Goldstuck; Thomas Hasskamp; Sohela Jandi; Ansgar Pett
Journal:  Open Access J Contracept       Date:  2015-01-16
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.