Literature DB >> 9883385

Ileal penetration by a Multiload-Cu 375 intrauterine contraceptive device. A case report with review of the literature.

C P Chen1, T C Hsu, W Wang.   

Abstract

A case of a 28-year-old gravida 3 para 2 woman with an ileal penetration by an intrauterine device (IUD) is reported. Four weeks following insertion of a Multiload-Cu 375, the woman underwent laparotomy due to persistent vague abdominal pain and translocation of the IUD. The device had perforated the fundal uterine wall and the two flexible side arms and the copper-bearing rod had completely eroded into the wall of the ileum with only the strings protruding outside the small bowel mesentery. Resection of an ileal segment with end-to-end anastomosis was performed. The woman made an uneventful recovery. It appears that a translocated Multiload-Cu 375 IUD body can penetrate and be entirely embedded within the bowel wall as early as 4 weeks following translocation. This report documents the shortest interval between insertion and proven bowel injury by an IUD.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Asia; Case Studies; China; Contraception; Contraceptive Methods--complications; Demographic Factors; Developing Countries; Diseases; Eastern Asia; Family Planning; Iud Migration; Iud, Copper Releasing--complications; Iud--complications; Literature Review; Perforations; Population; Population Dynamics; Research Methodology; Studies; Taiwan; Time Factors; Uterine Perforation

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9883385     DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(98)00116-4

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


  10 in total

1.  A new endoscopic method of retrieval of a migrated and transmurally embedded intrauterine contraceptive device in the rectum.

Authors:  T S Chandrasekar; B J Gokul; K Raja Yogesh; S Sathiamoorthy; M S Prasad; T C Viveksandeep; M Ahmed Ali
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-10-31

2.  Uterine perforation with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device: analysis of reports from four national pharmacovigilance centres.

Authors:  Kees van Grootheest; Bernhardt Sachs; Mira Harrison-Woolrych; Pia Caduff-Janosa; Eugène van Puijenbroek
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  Laparoscopic removal of a perforated intrauterine device from the perirectal fat.

Authors:  P D Silva; K M Larson
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2000 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  Ectopic intrauterine device in the bladder of a pregnant woman.

Authors:  Zehra Kurdoglu; Kadir Ceylan; Mertihan Kurdoglu; Ayse Guler; Hanim Guler Sahin
Journal:  Case Rep Med       Date:  2010-08-02

5.  A forgotten migrated intrauterine contraceptive device is not always innocent: a case report.

Authors:  Ranjeet Brar; Sudeendra Doddi; Anand Ramasamy; Prakash Sinha
Journal:  Case Rep Med       Date:  2010-08-25

6.  Laparoscopic retrieval of intrauterine device perforating the sigmoid colon.

Authors:  Angie R Taras; Jedediah A Kaufman
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2010 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

7.  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

8.  Appendiceal perforation caused by an intrauterine contraceptive device: A case report.

Authors:  Gulan Maree; Sozan Mohammad; Rama Saleh; Alifa Hoshma; Hawazen Makhluf
Journal:  Case Rep Womens Health       Date:  2022-09-02

9.  The perforated intrauterine device: endoscopic retrieval.

Authors:  Eric M Heinberg; Travis W McCoy; Resad Pasic
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2008 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 10.  Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: current perspectives.

Authors:  Sam Rowlands; Emeka Oloto; David H Horwell
Journal:  Open Access J Contracept       Date:  2016-03-16
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.