Reyhan GÜNDÜZ, Elif AĞAÇAYAK, Dicle Akkılıç DÖNMEZ, Fatih Mehmet FINDIK, Mehmet Sıddık EVSEN, Talip GÜL

Evaluation of Patients With Uterine Perforation After Intrauterine Device Placement and Determination of Risk Factors: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

To determine the risk factors by evaluating patients with uterine perforation after intrauterine devices (IUD) placement. Also, it was to make suggestions and contribute to the literature in order to prevent uterine perforation after the IUDs placement and how we should behave when we encounter these patients.Twenty-two patients with uterine perforation after IUDs placement (patient group) diagnosed and treated at our clinic and 30 patients with IUDs in place in the uterine cavity (control group) were retrospectively ev aluated and compared. IUDs insertion by a midwife and during the breastfeeding and puerperal period significantly increased the frequency of uterine perforation after IUDs placement, while insertion during the menstrual period significantly reduced risk. Uterine perforation after IUDs placement were most frequently localized in the myometrium (54.5%) and the douglas (13.6%). Uterine perforation-related complications were absent in 59.1% of patients. Of patients, 40.9% underwent hysteroscopy, 18.2% laparoscopy. The diagnostic method was ultrasonography alone at a rate of 68.2%. IUDs could be inserted during menstruation where possible, and patients could be informed about the high risk of uterine perforation after IUDs placement associated with the breastfeeding and puerperal periods. We recommend that IUDs be inserted with ultrasonography in this period. Midwives should receive regular training in order to increase their knowledge and experience on this subject. We recommend ultrasonography as the primary d iagnostic method. Those with IUDs embedded in the myometrium can primarily undergo hysteroscopy, and those with IUDs in the abdomen can undergo laparoscopy or laparotomy.

PDF

___

United Nations. World contraceptive use 2011. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publicati ons/contraceptive2011/contraceptive2011.ht m (Accessed on March 20, 2014).
Buhling KJ, Zite NB, Lotke P, Black K, INTRA Writing Group. Worldwide use of intrauterine contraception: A review. Contraception 2014; 89: 162- 173.
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 735: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131: 130.
Boortz HE, Margolis DJA, Ragavendra N, Patel MK, Kadell BM. Migration of Intrauter ine Devices: Radiologic Findings and Implica tions for Patient Care. RadioGraphics 2012; 32: 335- 352.
Mirena [package insert]. Whippany, NJ, Bayer, 2017.
Skyla [package insert]. Whippany, NJ, Bayer, 2018.
Liletta [package insert]. Irvine, CA, Allergan, 2018.
Kyleena [package insert]. Whippany, NJ, Bayer, 2018.
Adeyemi-Fowode OA, Bercaw-Pratt JL. Intrauterine Devices: Effective Contraception with Noncontraceptive Benefits for Adolescents. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2019; 32: 2- 6.
Nowitzki KM, Hoimes ML, Chen B, Zheng LZ, Kim YH. Ultrasonography of intrauterine devices. Ultrasonography 2015; 34: 183- 194.
Uçar MG, Şanlıkan F, Ilhan TT, Göçmen A, Çelik Ç. Management of intra-abdominally translocated contraceptive devices, is surgery the only way to treat this problem? J Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 37: 480-486.
Agacayak E, Tunc SY, Icen MS, et al. Evaluation of predisposing factors, diagnostic and treatment methods in patients with translocation of intrauterine devices. J. Obstet. Gynaecol Res 2015; 41: 735- 741.
Soydinç HE, Evsen MS, Çaça F, Sak ME, Taner MZ, Sak S. Translocated intrauterine contraceptive device: experiences of two medical centers with risk factors and the need for surgical treatment. J Reprod Med 2013; 58: 234- 240.
Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, Lahteenmaki P, Heikinheimo O. Intrauterine contraception: incidence and factors associated with uterine perforation—a population-based study. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 2658- 2663.
Barnett C, Moehner S, Minh TD, Heinemann K. Perforation risk and intra-uterine devices: results of the EURAS-IUD 5-year extension study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2017; 22: 424-428.
Lohr PA, Lyus R, Prager S. Use of intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception 2017; 95: 529– 537.
Kaleem A, Zaman BS, Nasir M, Hassan A. Transmigration of an intrauterine device into sigmoid colon-surgical management: A case report. J Pak Med Assoc 2018; 68: 1716-1718.
Kho KA, Chamsy DJ. Perforated Intraperitoneal Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices: Diagnosis, Management and Clinical Outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21: 596– 601.
Mosley FR, Shahi N, Kurer MA. Elective Surgical Removal of Migrated Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices From Within the Peritoneal Cavity: A Comparison Between Open and Laparoscopic Removal. JSLS 2012; 16: 236-241.