» Articles » PMID: 9649917

Perforations with Intrauterine Devices. Report from a Swedish Survey

Overview
Journal Contraception
Publisher Elsevier
Date 1998 Jul 3
PMID 9649917
Citations 37
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This survey comprised 50 consecutive perforations occurring with intrauterine devices (IUD) reported to the National Patient Insurance Scheme Register during 1990 to 1993. All 50 women were parous and > 20 years of age at the time of IUD insertion. Forty-two (84%) of the IUD were inserted by a midwife and eight by a gynecologist. A total of 45 women (90%) had their IUD inserted < 1 year after a full-term pregnancy and 31 women (62%) had their IUD inserted < or = 12 weeks after delivery. Of the 50 women, 27 (54%) reported that they were breastfeeding at the time of IUD insertion. No particular IUD was overrepresented in relation to its share on the market. In 31 cases (62%), severe pain at insertion and during the first 24 h was recorded. In 14 women (28%), the perforation was diagnosed early (i.e., within 1 month of insertion) and in 36 women (72%), the perforation was diagnosed > 1 month after insertion. Lower abdominal pain was the most frequent symptom at early diagnosis but in two cases, the main symptom was heavy bleeding. Among the 36 women in whom the perforation was discovered more than 1 month after insertion, the diagnosis was made when an unexpected pregnancy occurred in 20 women (56%). In 15 cases, the IUD strings were not visible during pelvic examination at a routine check-up, which led to efforts to locate the IUD. Thirty-two women (64%) underwent laparotomy for removal. We conclude that lactating women seem to be a risk group for perforation and that a national register of IUD perforations could provide a better means of quality control.

Citing Articles

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.


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.


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.


An Unusual, Delayed Presentation of a Migrated Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Into the Rectosigmoid Colon.

Toh W, Lim W, Tan W, Lim S Cureus. 2023; 15(8):e42851.

PMID: 37664308 PMC: 10473236. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42851.


Levonorgestrel intrauterine device with absence of threads: don't take expulsion for granted! A case series of possible errors in ultrasound evaluation, in case of "lost IUDs".

Algeri P, Spazzini M, Pinna N, Biancotti L, Mariuzzo F, Tomaselli T J Ultrasound. 2023; .

PMID: 37516719 DOI: 10.1007/s40477-023-00807-2.