Role of Uterine Forces in Intrauterine Device Embedment, Perforation, and Expulsion

Overview

Journal Int J Womens Health

Publisher Dove Medical Press

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2014 Aug 22

PMID 25143756

Citations 29

Authors

Norman D Goldstuck

Dirk Wildemeersch

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to examine factors that could help reduce primary perforation during insertion of a framed intrauterine device (IUD) and to determine factors that contribute in generating enough uterine muscle force to cause embedment and secondary perforation of an IUD. The objective was also to evaluate the main underlying mechanism of IUD expulsion.

Methods: We compared known IUD insertion forces for "framed" devices with known perforation forces in vitro (hysterectomy specimens) and known IUD removal forces and calculated a range of possible intrauterine forces using pressure and surface area. These were compared with known perforation forces.

Results: IUD insertion forces range from 1.5 N to 6.5 N. Removal forces range from 1 N to 5.8 N and fracture forces from 8.7 N to 30 N depending upon device. Measured perforation forces are from 20 N to 54 N, and calculations show the uterus is capable of generating up to 50 N of myometrial force depending on internal pressure and surface area.

Conclusion: Primary perforation with conventional framed IUDs may occur if the insertion pressure exceeds the perforation resistance of the uterine fundus. This is more likely to occur if the front end of the inserter/IUD is narrow, the passage through the cervix is difficult, and the procedure is complex. IUD embedment and secondary perforation and IUD expulsion may be due to imbalance between the size of the IUD and that of the uterine cavity, causing production of asymmetrical uterine forces. The uterine muscle seems capable of generating enough force to cause an IUD to perforate the myometrium provided it is applied asymmetrically. A physical theory for IUD expulsion and secondary IUD perforation is given.

Citing Articles

A Case Report of Intrauterine Device Migration: Uterine Penetration and Bladder Involvement with Secondary Stones 3 Years Post-Insertion.

Chen Z, Lv Z, Shi Y Int J Womens Health. 2024; 16:1903-1907.

PMID: 39539644 PMC: 11559418. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S492865.

Removal of Complete Spontaneous Migration of an Intrauterine Contraceptive Device to the Bladder by Cystoscopy.

Saputra A, Rahman M, Widyasari A Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2024; 2024:6934178.

PMID: 38770062 PMC: 11105948. DOI: 10.1155/2024/6934178.

Migration of Intra-Uterine Devices.

Verstraeten V, Vossaert K, den Bosch T Open Access J Contracept. 2024; 15:41-47.

PMID: 38495451 PMC: 10944303. DOI: 10.2147/OAJC.S458156.

Missed Diagnosis of Perforation and Intraperitoneal Migration of an Intrauterine Device and Its Management in a Resource-Limited Setting: A Case Report.

Gebremichael A, Teka H, Abadi K, Siferih M, Moges M, Arusi M Int Med Case Rep J. 2024; 17:71-76.

PMID: 38293615 PMC: 10826545. DOI: 10.2147/IMCRJ.S441386.

Migrated intrauterine device: Case series report.

Aljohani A, Alzarea A, Alnafee R, Aljadaani K, Sairafi R, Alzahrani A Int J Surg Case Rep. 2023; 111:108631.

PMID: 37757734 PMC: 10978329. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2023.108631.

References

Heartwell S, Schlesselman S . Risk of uterine perforation among users of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 1983; 61(1):31-6. View

Benacerraf B, Shipp T, Bromley B . Three-dimensional ultrasound detection of abnormally located intrauterine contraceptive devices which are a source of pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 34(1):110-5. DOI: 10.1002/uog.6421. View

Goldstuck N . A comparison of the initial pain response following insertion of the Copper 7 and combined Multiload Copper 250-short IUDs. Contracept Deliv Syst. 1981; 2(4):295-301. View

Wildemeersch D, Janssens D, Andrade A . The Femilis LNG-IUS: contraceptive performance-an interim analysis. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2009; 14(2):103-10. DOI: 10.1080/13625180802706059. View

Van Houdenhoven K, van Kaam K, van Grootheest A, Salemans T, Dunselman G . Uterine perforation in women using a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception. 2006; 73(3):257-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2005.08.013. View

Goldstuck N . Insertion forces with intrauterine devices: implications for uterine perforation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1987; 25(4):315-23. DOI: 10.1016/0028-2243(87)90142-0. View

Kamal I, Hefnawi F, Ghoneim M, Talaat M, Abdalla M . Dimensional and architectural disproportion between the intrauterine device and the uterine cavity. A casue of bleeding. Fertil Steril. 1971; 22(8):514-21. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)38406-0. View

Tejuja S, MALKANI P . Clinical significance of correlation between size of uterine cavity and IUCD. A study by planimeter-hysterogram technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1969; 105(4):620-7. View

Horbelt D, Roberts D, Adamson H . Studies in translocation. Dalkon Shield - insertion, perforation, and migration. J Kans Med Soc. 1979; 80(6):323-6. View

10.

Kurz K . Role of retention in avoiding expulsion of IUDs--measuring devices for basic research. Contracept Deliv Syst. 1982; 3(2):107-16. View

11.

Sinha P, Pradhan A, Diab Y . Expulsion of part of a spontaneously broken IUCD. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005; 24(7):837-8. DOI: 10.1080/01443610400009733. View

12.

Goldstuck N, Hofmeyr G, Sonnendecker E, Butchart A . In vitro study of fracture forces associated with the Copper 7, Nova T and MLCu 250/375 intrauterine devices. Contraception. 1990; 41(6):583-9. View

13.

Wilson S, Tan G, Baylson M, Schreiber C . Controversies in family planning: how to manage a fractured IUD. Contraception. 2013; 88(5):599-603. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.07.007. View

14.

Jindal S, Sharma S, Ikomi A . Spontaneous breakage and expulsion of a stem fragment of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (Mirena) following duplicate insertion. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008; 279(1):95-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-008-0819-9. View

15.

Caliskan E, Ozturk N, Dilbaz B, Dilbaz S . Analysis of risk factors associated with uterine perforation by intrauterine devices. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2003; 8(3):150-5. View

16.

Eke N, Okpani A . Extrauterine translocated contraceptive device: a presentation of five cases and revisit of the enigmatic issues of iatrogenic perforation and migration. Afr J Reprod Health. 2004; 7(3):117-23. View

17.

Liedman R, Skillern L, James I, McLeod A, Grant L, Akerlund M . Validation of a test model of induced dysmenorrhea. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006; 85(4):451-7. DOI: 10.1080/00016340500432432. View

18.

Ismail A, Anwar M, Keshk S, Azazy S, Gaweesh S, Toppozada M . Uterine geometry by Wing Sound and hysterography versus direct measurements. Adv Contracept. 1987; 3(3):237-43. DOI: 10.1007/BF01849397. View

19.

Czekanowski R . [In vitro studies into interdependence of volume and pressure in non-pregnant human uterus (author's transl)]. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1980; 102(3):129-37. View

20.

Goldstuck N . 'Bowing' forces with IUD inserters in vitro: relevance to difficult IUD insertions. Clin Reprod Fertil. 1987; 5(4):173-6. View