Early sonographic diagnosis of intrauterine device migration to the adnexa

[Diagnosis and management of uterine perforations after intrauterine device insertion: a report of 11 cases]

OBJECTIVE

Intrauterine device insertion is common. It is however not harmless and uterine perforation can be serious.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eleven cases of uterine perforation after intrauterine device insertion were listed at Tourcoing hospital between 2005 and 2009. They were analyzed to identify risk factors of uterine perforation and specify management.

RESULTS

The main symptom was pelvic pain (4 cases), pregnancy occurrence (3 cases) or inability to remove the IUD (2 cases). The intrauterine device was set during the first 9 months of post-partum in 7 cases, 2 patients were still breastfeeding. Seven patients underwent laparoscopy, 2 needed switch for laparotomy, one was treated by laparotomy only and one was lost of follow-up.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Incidence of uterine perforation after IUD insertion ranges from 0,1 to 3/1000. Pelvic pain is the most revealing symptom. Fifteen percent of perforations complicate with adjacent organ lesion. Perforation incidence seems greater if the intrauterine device is set during the 6 first weeks of post-partum and breastfeeding, but non influenced by operator practical experience. Ultrasound follow-up of patients carrying intrauterine device is controversial. Facing a suspicion of ectopic intrauterine device, pelvic ultrasound examination is the first step imaging modality and using 3D could be useful. If it fails to localize the intrauterine device, an abdominal X-ray must be performed. Ectopic intrauterine device removal is recommended.

The width of the uterine cavity is narrower in patients with an embedded intrauterine device (IUD) compared to a normally positioned IUD

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether women with intrauterine devices (IUDs) embedded in the myometrium or cervix have a narrower fundal transverse endometrial diameter as seen on 3-dimensional (3D) sonography compared to women whose IUDs are in a normal location.

METHODS

A sonographer blinded to the study hypothesis retrospectively evaluated the 3D images and reconstructed coronal views of the uterine cavity in 172 consecutive women who had an IUD in the uterus. The width of the endometrial cavity at the fundus of the uterus was measured transversely on the rendered coronal sonogram using the calipers on a picture archiving and communications system. The measurements obtained from women who had nonembedded IUDs were compared to those with embedded IUDs.

RESULTS

Measurement of the width of the endometrial cavity at the fundus was successfully performed in 132 patients with nonembedded IUDs and 29 with embedded IUDs. The mean ± SD values of the fundal uterine cavity for the nonembedded and embedded IUDs were 32 ± 1.0 and 25 ± 0.8 mm, [corrected] respectively (P = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with embedded IUDs have a smaller fundal endometrial cavity diameter compared to those with normally placed IUDs as documented using 3D rendering of the uterus. Whether preprocedural 3D sonography for women who are IUD candidates would be useful deserves further study.