» Articles » PMID: 37907685

CT Imaging of Intrauterine Devices (IUD): Expected Findings, Unexpected Findings, and Complications

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2023 Nov 1
PMID 37907685
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are a commonly used form of long-acting reversible contraception, which either contain copper or levonorgestrel to prevent pregnancy. Although symptomatic patients with indwelling IUDs may first undergo ultrasound to assess for device malposition and complications, IUDs are commonly encountered on CT in patients undergoing evaluation for unrelated indications. Frequently, IUD malposition and complications may be asymptomatic or clinically unsuspected. For these reasons, it is important for the radiologist to carefully scrutinize the IUD on any study in which it is encountered. To do so, the radiologist must recognize that normally positioned IUDs are located centrally within the uterine cavity. IUDs are extremely effective in preventing pregnancy, though inadvertent pregnancy risk is higher with malpositioned IUDs. Presence of fibroids or Mullerian abnormalities may preclude proper IUD placement. Radiologists play an important role in identifying complications when they arise and special considerations when planning for an IUD placement. There is a wide range of IUD malposition, affecting IUDs differently depending on the type of IUD and its mechanism of action. IUD malposition is the most common complication, but embedment and/or partial perforation can and can lead to difficulty when removed. Retained IUD fragments can result in continued contraceptive effect. Perforated IUDs do not typically cause intraperitoneal imaging findings.

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.


Case report: Uterine perforation caused by migration of intrauterine devices.

Li Q, Qi D, Bi T, Guo X, Chen H Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1455207.

PMID: 39301484 PMC: 11410695. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1455207.


A multimodality review of gynecologic devices in the pelvis.

Zaki-Metias K, Ogunde B, Carruthers H, Deptula L, Allen L, Hakim B Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024; 49(7):2459-2477.

PMID: 38805098 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04367-9.

References
1.
Curtis K, Jatlaoui T, Tepper N, Zapata L, Horton L, Jamieson D . U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016; 65(4):1-66. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6504a1. View

2.
Creinin M, Barnhart K, Gawron L, Eisenberg D, Mabey Jr R, Jensen J . Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Treatment With a Levonorgestrel 52-mg Intrauterine Device. Obstet Gynecol. 2023; 141(5):971-978. PMC: 10108838. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005137. View

3.
Hubacher D, Chen P, Park S . Side effects from the copper IUD: do they decrease over time?. Contraception. 2009; 79(5):356-62. PMC: 2702765. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.11.012. View

4.
Hidalgo M, Bahamondes L, Perrotti M, Diaz J, Petta C . Bleeding patterns and clinical performance of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) up to two years. Contraception. 2002; 65(2):129-32. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-7824(01)00302-x. View

5.
Moschos E, Twickler D . Does the type of intrauterine device affect conspicuity on 2D and 3D ultrasound?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196(6):1439-43. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5483. View