Clinical Characteristic and Intraoperative Findings of Uterine Perforation Patients in Using of Intrauterine Devices (IUDs)

Overview

Journal Gynecol Surg

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2018 Feb 2

PMID 29386988

Citations 11

Authors

Xin Sun

Min Xue

Xinliang Deng

Yun Lin

Ying Tan

Xueli Wei

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are the most popular form of contraception used worldwide; however, IUD is not risk-free. IUD migrations, especially uterine perforations, were frequently occurred in patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and intraoperative findings in patients with migrated IUDs.

Results: 29 cases of uterine perforation associated with migrated IUDs and 69 control patients were followed between January 2008 to March 2015. Patients who used IUDs within first 6 months from the last delivery experienced a characteristically high rate of the perforation of the uterine wall. A significantly larger number of IUD insertion associated with uterine perforation were performed in rural hospitals or operated at a lower level health care system. There was no clear difference in the age and presented symptoms in patients between two groups. Majority of contraceptive intrauterine devices was the copper-releasing IUDs. Furthermore, patients who used V-shaped IUD showed significantly higher incidence of pelvic adhesions when compared with the users of O-shaped IUDs.

Conclusions: Unique clinical characteristics of IUD migration were identified in patients with uterine perforation. Hysteroscopy and/or laparoscopy were the effective approaches to remove the migrated IUDs. Improving operating skills is required at the lower level of health care system.

Citing Articles

Increased risk of hypertrophic scarring in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a bidirectional mendelian randomization study.

Cao Y, Liu C Arch Dermatol Res. 2025; 317(1):299.

PMID: 39833481 DOI: 10.1007/s00403-024-03737-z.

Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Translocation Leading to Right Anteromedial Ovarian Surface Impingement and Laparoscopic Retrieval: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Anwaar A, Karamat R, Khanzada M, Akilimali A, Aamir M, Arshad M Clin Case Rep. 2025; 13(1):e70061.

PMID: 39776775 PMC: 11705494. DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.70061.

Intrauterine device (IUD) migration to the fallopian tube: a rare location for a translocated IUD with no visceral injury.

Wangwe P, Awadh N, Angelus M Contracept Reprod Med. 2024; 9(1):36.

PMID: 39054493 PMC: 11270885. DOI: 10.1186/s40834-024-00278-8.

Open surgical retrieval of intra-uterine contraceptive device perforating the ileum: A case report.

Almatary A, Alsharif A, Ghabisha S, Ahmed F, Badheeb M Int J Surg Case Rep. 2023; 109:108635.

PMID: 37552923 PMC: 10425888. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2023.108635.

Neglected Intrauterine Device Migration Complications: Case Reports.

Koh A Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle). 2023; 4(1):11-18.

PMID: 36727094 PMC: 9883666. DOI: 10.1089/whr.2022.0099.

References

Mosley F, Shahi N, Kurer M . Elective surgical removal of migrated intrauterine contraceptive devices from within the peritoneal cavity: a comparison between open and laparoscopic removal. JSLS. 2013; 16(2):236-41. PMC: 3481248. DOI: 10.4293/108680812x13427982377265. View

Zhao S, Deng J, Wang Y, Bi S, Wang X, Qin W . Experience and levels of satisfaction with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in China: a prospective multicenter survey. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014; 8:1449-55. PMC: 4211859. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S68299. View

Balci O, Mahmoud A, Capar M, Colakoglu M . Diagnosis and management of intra-abdominal, mislocated intrauterine devices. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010; 281(6):1019-22. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-010-1374-8. View

Marchi N, Castro S, Hidalgo M, Hidalgo C, Monteiro-Dantas C, Villarroeal M . Management of missing strings in users of intrauterine contraceptives. Contraception. 2012; 86(4):354-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.01.018. View

Su S, Zhao Z, Feng S, Dong B . A novel medical device for removal of intrauterine devices under direct vision. Contraception. 2012; 86(5):583-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.04.002. View

Rahnemai-Azar A, Apfel T, Naghshizadian R, Cosgrove J, Farkas D . Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine. JSLS. 2014; 18(3). PMC: 4236077. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2014.00122. View

ZAKIN D, STERN W, Rosenblatt R . Complete and partial uterine perforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterine devices. I. Classification, complications, mechanism, incidence, and missing string. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1981; 36(7):335-53. DOI: 10.1097/00006254-198107000-00001. View

Harrison-Woolrych M, Ashton J, Coulter D . Uterine perforation on intrauterine device insertion: is the incidence higher than previously reported?. Contraception. 2003; 67(1):53-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00417-1. View

Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, Lahteenmaki P, Heikinheimo O . Uterine perforation caused by intrauterine devices: clinical course and treatment. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(6):1546-51. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det074. View

10.

Boortz H, Margolis D, Ragavendra N, Patel M, Kadell B . Migration of intrauterine devices: radiologic findings and implications for patient care. Radiographics. 2012; 32(2):335-52. DOI: 10.1148/rg.322115068. View

11.

dArcangues C . Worldwide use of intrauterine devices for contraception. Contraception. 2007; 75(6 Suppl):S2-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2006.12.024. View

12.

Wildemeersch D, Hasskamp T, Goldstuck N . Intrauterine devices that do not fit well cause side effects, become embedded, or are expelled and can even perforate the uterine wall. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 22(2):309-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.09.010. View

13.

Adoni A, Ben Chetrit A . The management of intrauterine devices following uterine perforation. Contraception. 1991; 43(1):77-81. DOI: 10.1016/0010-7824(91)90128-3. View

14.

Zhou L, Harrison-Woolrych M, Coulter D . Use of the New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme to study the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (Mirena). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003; 12(5):371-7. DOI: 10.1002/pds.875. View

15.

Andersson K, Lindell K, Odlind V, Milsom I . Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey. Contraception. 1998; 57(4):251-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(98)00029-8. View

16.

Harrison-Woolrych M, Ashton J, Coulter D . Insertion of the Multiload Cu375 intrauterine device; experience in over 16,000 New Zealand women. Contraception. 2002; 66(6):387-91. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00413-4. View

17.

Zhang S, Li Y, Yu P, Chen T, Zhou W, Zhang W . In vitro release of cupric ion from intrauterine devices: influence of frame, shape, copper surface area and indomethacin. Biomed Microdevices. 2015; 17(1):19. DOI: 10.1007/s10544-014-9924-7. View

18.

Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Minh T . Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices. Contraception. 2015; 91(4):274-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.007. View

19.

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

20.

Goldstuck N, Wildemeersch D . Role of uterine forces in intrauterine device embedment, perforation, and expulsion. Int J Womens Health. 2014; 6:735-44. PMC: 4132253. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S63167. View