Intrauterine Device Extraction

No Results

No Results

processing….

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are highly effective reversible contraceptives. ^[1] Intrauterine contraception is an increasingly popular choice for women seeking long-term pregnancy prevention. ^[2] In addition, IUDs are among the most cost-effective options for reversible contraception, and overall patient satisfaction with this method is high. ^{[3, 4]}

Three intrauterine devices (IUDs) have been approved by the FDA in the United States: the Mirena intrauterine device, the Skyla intrauterine device, and the ParaGard (T380A intrauterine copper contraceptive). Mirena and Skyla contain levonorgestrel (a progestin) that is released up to 3 years (Skyla) or 5 years (Mirena).

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems are the most effective IUD available, with a 0.2% pregnancy rate at 1 year of use for Mirena ^[1] and a 0.9% pregnancy rate after 2 years of use for Skyla. ^[5] Each levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system consists of a T-shaped polyethylene frame with a hormone reservoir that contains either 52 mg (Mirena) or 13.5 mg (Skyla) of levonorgestrel. Levonorgestrel is initially released at a rate of 20 ug/day and decreases to 11 ug/day after 5 years for Mirena. ^[6] Skyla releases 13.5 mg of levonorgestrel at a rate of 14 ug/day after 24 days following insertion. The release rate declines to 5 ug/day after 3 years. ^[5]

The mechanism of action of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system is thought to be multifactorial. The levonorgestrel is thought to cause endometrial suppression and changes in cervical mucus that render the intrauterine environment inhospitable for pregnancy. ^{[7, 8]} In addition, the physical presence of the IUD causes alterations in ovum and sperm migration and potential damage to the fertilized embryo prior to implantation. ^[9] The most common complaints voiced by women using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system are irregular spotting, which commonly occurs in the months following placement, amenorrhea, and pain. ^{[9, 10]}

The copper T380A IUD is also highly efficacious, with a 0.8% pregnancy rate at one year of use. ^[1] It consists of a T-shaped polyethylene frame that is wrapped with a copper wire. It is approved for contraception for a 10-year interval, after which time it should be removed and a new device placed. The mechanism of action is thought to be related to the physical presence of the IUD, which interferes with sperm and ovum transport and potentially damages the ovum or the embryo prior to implantation. ^[9] The most common side effects of Copper T380A IUD use are bleeding and pain. ^[10]

In general, IUD insertion and removal are both outpatient office procedures intended to be performed by trained health care providers. This objective of this review is to outline IUD removal and discuss issues relevant to this procedure.

Ideally, the indication for IUD removal is desire for pregnancy. Alternatively, IUD removal is indicated after 5 years for the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and after 10 years for the copper T380A IUD. ^{[6, 11]} In this setting, patients should be counseled that return of fertility after removal may be immediate and rates of pregnancy within the first year after removal approximate those in women without contraception. ^[12] In women seeking continued contraception, a new IUD can be placed at the same visit as the removal of an expired device.

IUD removal should be performed at any time secondary to patient request. The most common reasons cited by patients requesting IUD removal are side effects, including bleeding, pain, or infection (45%); this is followed by device-related issues (32%), fears or misconceptions (12.6%), and desire for current pregnancy (9.7%). ^[13] Current literature suggests that many of these requests for removal, particularly those requested secondary to side effects and fears or misconceptions may be prevented by thorough preinsertion counseling regarding expectations with IUD insertion and continued use. ^{[14, 15]}

Mild pain with insertion is common, and some women continue to experience cramping pain for days to weeks following insertion. Severe pain is uncommon and is cause for prompt evaluation and, possibly, IUD removal. Patients who present requesting IUD removal secondary to unscheduled bleeding, amenorrhea, or pain should have a history and physical examination performed. They should be counseled that these effects maybe an expected outcome with IUD use. A urine pregnancy test should also be performed. If the patient feels the side effects are not acceptable to her despite counseling, or laboratory or examination results are concerning for malposition of IUD or pregnancy, then the IUD should be removed.

Notably, presence of newly diagnosed gonorrhea or chlamydia infection is not an indication for IUD removal. ^{[16, 17, 18]} The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends a preinsertion physical examination to evaluate for signs of cervicitis and screening tests for gonorrhea or chlamydia in high-risk women. If cervicitis is suspected based on physical examination, IUD insertion should be delayed until after treatment. Otherwise, screening may be performed and the IUD inserted on the same day.

If this screen returns positive for gonorrhea or chlamydia, the patient can be treated with the IUD in place. Concern in this setting is for ascending genital tract infection or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and related sequelae. The risk for PID related to IUD insertion is greatest within the first 20 days after insertion, indicating that the likely mechanism of infection is contamination of upper genital tract from infection present at the time of insertion. ^{[19, 20]}

This underscores the need for screening in high-risk women. The risk for PID in women with a sexually transmitted infection at time of insertion is higher than in women without infection at the time of insertion; however the overall risk is still low, around 5%. ^[21] Although placing an IUD is contraindicated in a patient with PID, if they acquire PID with an IUD in place treating without removing the IUD is safe. ^{[17, 18]} In this situation, patients should be followed closely, and the IUD should be removed if appropriate clinical improvement does not occur. IUDs should be removed in patients with pelvic tuberculosis. ^{[17, 18]}

Clinical guidelines on intrauterine contraception were released on November 11, 2018, by the Collège national des gynécologues et obstétriciens français (CNGOF) ^[22]

Hatcher RA,Trussell J, Nelson AL, Cates W, Stewart F, Kowal D. Contraceptive Technology. 19. New York, NY: Ardent Media; 2007.

Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982-2008. Vital Health Stat 23. 2010 Aug. 1-44. [Medline].

Trussell J, Lalla AM, Doan QV, Reyes E, Pinto L, Gricar J. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception. 2009 Jan. 79(1):5-14. [Medline].

Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, Petrosky E, Madden T, Eisenberg D, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May. 117(5):1105-13. [Medline].

Skyla (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) [package insert]. Wayne, NJ: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. January 2013. Available at [Full Text].

Mirena levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system [package insert]. Berlex. 2003. Available at [Full Text].

Barbosa I, Olsson SE, Odlind V, Goncalves T, Coutinho E. Ovarian function after seven years’ use of a levonorgestrel IUD. Adv Contracept. 1995 Jun. 11(2):85-95. [Medline].

Nilsson CG, Lahteenmaki PL, Luukkainen T. Ovarian function in amenorrheic and menstruating users of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. Fertil Steril. 1984 Jan. 41(1):52-5. [Medline].

Rivera R, Yacobson I, Grimes D. The mechanism of action of hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Nov. 181(5 Pt 1):1263-9. [Medline].

Baveja R, Bichille LK, Coyaji KJ, Engineer AD, Gogoi MP, Hazra MN. Randomized clinical trial with intrauterine devices (levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG), CuT 380Ag, CuT 220C and CuT 200B). A 36-month study. Indian Council of Medical Research Task Force on IUD. Contraception. 1989 Jan. 39(1):37-52. [Medline].

Paragard T380A intrauterine copper contraceptive [package insert]. FEI Products. 2003. Available at [Full Text].

Andersson K, Batar I, Rybo G. Return to fertility after removal of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and Nova-T. Contraception. 1992 Dec. 46(6):575-84. [Medline].

Alnakash AH. Influence of IUD perceptions on method discontinuation. Contraception. 2008 Oct. 78(4):290-3. [Medline].

El-Tagy A, Sakr E, Sokal DC, Issa AH. Safety and acceptability of post-abortal IUD insertion and the importance of counseling. Contraception. 2003 Mar. 67(3):229-34. [Medline].

Darney PD, Klaisle CM. Contraception-associated menstrual problems: etiology and management. Dialogues Contracept. 1998 Spring. 5(5):1-6. [Medline].

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 121: Long-acting reversible contraception: Implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul. 118(1):184-96. [Medline].

World Health Organization: Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. 2009.

U S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010 Jun 18. 59:1-86. [Medline].

Farley TM, Rosenberg MJ, Rowe PJ, Chen JH, Meirik O. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective. Lancet. 1992 Mar 28. 339(8796):785-8. [Medline].

Beerthuizen RJ. Pelvic inflammatory disease in intrauterine device users. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1996 Sep. 1(3):237-43. [Medline].

Mohllajee AP, Curtis KM, Peterson HB. Does insertion and use of an intrauterine device increase the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease among women with sexually transmitted infection? A systematic review. Contraception. 2006 Feb. 73(2):145-53. [Medline].

Vidal F, Paret L, Linet T, Tanguy le Gac Y, Guerby P. [Intrauterine contraception: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Nov 11. [Medline].

Ozgun MT, Batukan C, Serin IS, Ozcelik B, Basbug M, Dolanbay M. Surgical management of intra-abdominal mislocated intrauterine devices. Contraception. 2007 Feb. 75(2):96-100. [Medline].

Verma U, Astudillo-Davalos FE, Gerkowicz SA. Safe and cost-effective ultrasound guided removal of retained intrauterine device: our experience. Contraception. 2015 Feb 21. [Medline].

Swenson C, Royer PA, Turok DK, Jacobson JC, Amaral G, Sanders JN. Removal of the LNG IUD when strings are not visible: a case series. Contraception. 2014 Sep. 90(3):288-90. [Medline].

Markovitch O, Klein Z, Gidoni Y, Holzinger M, Beyth Y. Extrauterine mislocated IUD: is surgical removal mandatory?. Contraception. 2002 Aug. 66(2):105-8. [Medline].

Heinberg EM, McCoy TW, Pasic R. The perforated intrauterine device: endoscopic retrieval. JSLS. 2008 Jan-Mar. 12(1):97-100. [Medline].

Haimov-Kochman R, Amsalem H, Adoni A, Lavy Y, Spitz IM. Management of a perforated levonorgestrel-medicated intrauterine device–a pharmacokinetic study: case report. Hum Reprod. 2003 Jun. 18(6):1231-3. [Medline].

Adoni A, Ben Chetrit A. The management of intrauterine devices following uterine perforation. Contraception. 1991 Jan. 43(1):77-81. [Medline].

Rivera R, Chen-Mok M, McMullen S. Analysis of client characteristics that may affect early discontinuation of the TCu-380A IUD. Contraception. 1999 Sep. 60(3):155-60. [Medline].

Sarah Hagood Milton, MD Resident Physician, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Nicole W Karjane, MD Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center

Nicole W Karjane, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology

Disclosure: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Merck<br/>Served as Nexplanon trainer for: Merck.

Christine Isaacs, MD Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division Head, General Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Director of Midwifery Services, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine

Christine Isaacs, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Intrauterine Device Extraction

Research & References of Intrauterine Device Extraction|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us