Migration of Intra-Uterine Devices
Victoria Verstraeten,Karlien Vossaert,Thierry Van den Bosch
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/oajc.s458156
2024-03-12
Open Access Journal of Contraception
Abstract:Victoria Verstraeten, 1, 2 Karlien Vossaert, 2 Thierry Van den Bosch 1 1 Obstetrics & Gynaecology - UZ Leuven Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium; 2 Obstetrics & Gynaecology – AZ Sint- Blasius Dendermonde, Dendermonde, Belgium Correspondence: Victoria Verstraeten, Email Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are a widely used contraceptive. Possible complications from IUDs include failed insertion, pain, vasovagal reaction, infection, abnormal bleeding, and expulsion. Uterine perforation and migration of the IUD are rare complications occurring in approximately 1– 2 per 1000 insertions. We executed a systematic review by reviewing all case reports and case series on IUD migration, published between December 2002 and December 2022. Our review indicates that about half of these patients present with pain and that a third are completely asymptomatic. The most common sites of migration are the intestine, bladder, and omentum. We found that the preferred method for removing the migrated IUD is laparoscopy. Generally, there are no lasting injuries after the removal of the migrated IUD, but occasionally, severe complications have been reported. Healthcare providers should be vigilant about this rare complication, especially in cases of painful insertion or the presence of other risk factors for perforation. When uterine perforation is diagnosed, it is advisable to remove the IUD to prevent severe complications. Keywords: uterine perforation, missing IUD, long-acting reversible contraceptive, complication The intrauterine device (IUD) is a widely used contraceptive method. This type of contraception belongs to the family of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) and is among the methods with the highest contraceptive effectiveness. The two most used types are the copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) and the levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG-IUD). These methods offer 99.2% and 99.8% effectiveness, respectively, in preventing pregnancy. 1 Both types are generally well-tolerated. The Cu-IUD is the most used reversible contraceptive method worldwide. 2 Besides contraception, the 52-mg LNG-IUD is also indicated for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. 3 Possible complications of the IUD include failed insertion, pain during and after insertion, vasovagal reaction during insertion, infection, abnormal bleeding, expulsion, and uterine perforation. 4 Uterine perforation is a rare complication with an incidence ranging from 0.3 to 2.6 per 1000 insertions for LNG-IUD and from 0.3 to 2.2 per 1000 insertions for Cu-IUD. 5 Uterine perforation may be asymptomatic or cause pain, abnormal bleeding, bowel or bladder perforation or fistula formation. 6 The number of published case reports on uterine perforation has increased significantly in the last two decades, presumably due to the increasing use of the IUD. We present a systematic review on the incidence of perforation and migration of the IUD, its complications, and approaches to diagnosing and treating a perforated IUD. The purpose of our review was to identify randomized clinical trials, case reports and systematic reviews regarding migrated IUDs. The search was conducted by one author (VV). The reference lists of all primary articles were also examined by the same author (VV). Through PubMed, the "related articles" feature was also used, as well as reference lists of the reviewed articles. A systematic search was performed on several electronic databases (Medline/Pubmed, Cochrane and Sciencedirect). The search terms and MeSH terms used were "Intrauterine device migration", "Intrauterine device perforation", "Uterine perforation" and "Intrauterine device". All articles in Dutch, French, English, or Spanish between 2002 and 2022 that described complete uterine perforation or migration of an IUD were included. The selection of articles was performed by one author (VV). The study was completed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. 7 The following data were collected from each case: demographic data, including age and parity, clinical symptoms at presentation, the specific type of IUD, length of time between IUD placement and diagnosis of perforation, location of the perforated IUD, method of IUD removal, and reported complications. We screened 936 articles, of which 119 articles were included in the review (Figure 1). All included articles were case reports or case series. Within these 119 articles, 165 cases of IUD perforation were identified. The average age of the patients was 39 years, ranging from 19 to 74 years (data by case in Appendix ). Parity was mentioned in only 60% of the cases, of which 68% were multiparous (median: 2). The time between IUD placement and d -Abstract Truncated-
English Else