Complications and risk factors associated with the removal of Norplant implants

A strong quick-release biointerface in mussels mediated by serotonergic cilia-based adhesion

The mussel byssus stem provides a strong and compact mechanically mismatched biointerface between living tissue and a nonliving biopolymer. Yet, in a poorly understood process, mussels can simply jettison their entire byssus, rebuilding a new one in just hours. We characterized the structure and composition of the byssus biointerface using histology, confocal Raman mapping, phase contrast-enhanced microcomputed tomography, and advanced electron microscopy, revealing a sophisticated junction consisting of abiotic biopolymer sheets interdigitated between living extracellular matrix. The sheet surfaces are in intimate adhesive contact with billions of motile epithelial cilia that control biointerface strength and stem release through their collective movement, which is regulated neurochemically. We posit that this may involve a complex sensory pathway by which sessile mussels respond to environmental stresses to release and relocate.

Buprenorphine Implant Removal 7 Years Postinsertion: A Case Report

: A long-acting buprenorphine subdermal implant, Probuphine, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in May 2016, for the maintenance treatment of patients with opioid-use disorder. Long-acting implants offer the potential benefits of improved medication adherence, consistent daily dosing, and reduced risk of medication diversion. Sets of 4 implants are typically inserted for a period of 6 months and then removed. Similar technology has been successfully utilized in implantable formulations of birth control medications; however, there is currently little clinical experience involving buprenorphine implants that have remained in the body for extended periods of time. This is a case report involving an early clinical study subject who had been lost to follow-up at the time of the original study because of incarceration. Despite the protracted duration of time since initial implantation, all 4 implants remained easily palpable, and displayed little physical deterioration or tissue infiltration. All implants were able to be removed using the standard explant technique of midline incision and limited tissue dissection. While extending length of treatment beyond the indicated 6-month period is not being espoused, this case demonstrates that although situations may arise where implants may remain in an individual for longer than the intended dosing period, implants may be removed safely despite remaining implanted for longer than intended.

Factors associated with removal difficulties of etonogestrel-containing contraceptive implants (Nexplanon®)

OBJECTIVES

Nexplanon^®'s new applicator system was designed to limit deep implant placements, known to lead to difficult removals. However, removal difficulties still exist and induce specific and potentially severe complications. Our objective was to identify risk factors associated with difficult removals.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective single-center study was performed from January 2015 to December 2016. Participants were divided into two groups depending on whether implant was removed during a standard ("standard removal" group) or difficult consultation ("difficult removal" group) after an initial failed removal attempt.

RESULTS

The difficult and standard removal groups comprised 63 and 660 women, respectively. In a univariate analysis, significant intergroup differences were found for weight gain (3.7 ± 7.3 kg in the difficult removal group vs. 1.3 ± 5.1 in the standard removal group), proportion of placements performed in private practice (66.7% vs. 19.8%, respectively), and duration of Nexplanon^® placement (29.4 ± 11.3 months versus 26 ± 13.6, respectively). We also reported more frequent sub-brachial fascia placements when Nexplanon^® was implanted by a private practitioner (7.5% cases versus 0.4% in hospital implantations, p < 0.001). In a stepwise binary logistic regression analysis, placement by a private practitioner, weight gain >1 kg since placement, and duration of implant placement >25 months were confirmed as independent risk factors for removal difficulties (respective risk ratios 7.63 [95% IC 4.35-13.33], 2.10 [1.18-3.70], and 1.91 [1.06-3.44], p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of these three simple parameters might help physicians to identify "at risk-patients", and suggest a specific consultation before risking a potentially hazardous removal (with its associated, specific morbidity). Our results also emphasize importance of training in implant insertion.

Assessment of Implanon insertion and removal

OBJECTIVE

This report describes the proper technique and the time required for insertion and removal of Implanon.

METHODS

Implanon was inserted into 330 female volunteers for an assessment of efficacy, safety and tolerability over a 2-year period. Implanon was inserted subdermally using a unique, specially designed, preloaded, disposable applicator, and removal was accomplished either by the "pop-out" method or by grasping the implant with a small hemostat and removing it through a small incision.

RESULTS

The average length of time required for insertion was 0.5 min. The average length of time required for removal was 3.6 min. There were no reported pregnancies when Implanon was in situ.

CONCLUSION

Implanon is a single-rod subdermal contraceptive that is usually easily inserted and removed. Insertion and removal represent brief office procedures associated with a low rate of complications. Following proper insertion and removal procedures will minimize the possibility of complications.

Nerve injury caused by removal of an implantable hormonal contraceptive

Implanon insertion and removal are relatively uncomplicated procedures in the hands of medical professionals familiar with the technique. However, injury to branches of the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve during Implanon insertion and removal can result in impaired sensibility, severe localized pain, or the formation of painful neuroma that can be quite devastating to the patient. The best way to avoid injury to the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve is to better understand its position relative to the standard area of Implanon insertion. In the event that an injury to the nerve is recognized, immediate plastic surgical measures should be undertaken to avoid displeasing sequels of nerve injuries. Therefore, the benefit of this generally well-tolerated, highly effective, and relatively cost-efficient contraception is guaranteed only in the hands of medical professionals familiar with the technique.

Risks and benefits, advantages and disadvantages of levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants

Levonorgestrel-releasing implants are long acting contraceptives, approved for 5 years of continuous use. Two marketed systems, the six capsule Norplant use of tradenames is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement. and the two rod Jadelle, have essentially equal rates of drug release, pregnancy and adverse events over 5 years of use. Randomised clinical trials and controlled cohort observations indicate that for the first 3 years, when pregnancy rates are at or almost zero, no other contraceptive system is more effective, although etonogestrel implants provide equal effectiveness. Annual pregnancy rates rise in the fifth year of continuous use but remain below 1 per 100 women. Annual pregnancy rates of Norplant users remain below 1 per 100 throughout 7 years of continuous use. Levonorgestrel implants provide low progestogen doses; 40-50 microg/day at 1 year of use, decreasing to 25-30 microg/day in the fifth year. Serum levels of levonorgestrel at 5 years are 60-65% of those levels measured at 1 month of use. Adverse effects with levonorgestrel implants are similar to those observed with progestogen only and combined oral contraceptives. Risks of ectopic pregnancy, other pregnancy complications and pelvic inflammatory disease are reduced in comparison with those of women using copper or non-medicated intrauterine devices. Risks of developing gallbladder disease and hypertension or borderline hypertension, although small, are about 1.5 and 1.8 times greater, respectively, in women using levonorgestrel implants than in women not using hormonal contraception. Other serious diseases have not been found to occur significantly more frequently in levonorgestrel implant users than in women not using hormonal contraception. The great majority of levonorgestrel implant users experience menstrual problems, but serious bleeding problems are not more frequent than in controls. Other health problems reported more frequently by levonogestrel implant users than by women not using hormonal contraception in a study of 16000 women included skin conditions, headache, upper limb neuropathies, dizziness, nervousness, malaise, minor visual disturbances, respiratory conditions, arthropathies, weight change, anxiety and non-clinical depression. Clinical depression is not more frequent in women using implants compared with those not using hormonal contraception (i.e. using intrauterine devices, sterilisation). Removal problems occur less frequently with Jadelle than with Norplant. The mean removal time for Jadelle is half that of Norplant. Levonorgestrel implants in nationally representative scientific samples, in randomised trials, and in controlled cohort studies have continuation rates as high as or higher than any other reversible contraceptive over a duration of 5 years. This would imply that the satisfaction women derive from the contraceptive effectiveness of levonorgestrel implants greatly outweighs the dissatisfaction that may accompany menstrual disturbances and other adverse effects associated with implants.

Nonmenstrual adverse events during use of implantable contraceptives for women: data from clinical trials

Contraceptive methods, including implants, do not prevent common symptoms and adverse health events that most people experience. It is difficult, therefore, to decide whether or not the occurrence of symptoms or adverse events that are common can be attributed to use of a contraceptive method or to determine if a given method changes the likelihood of their occurrence. Based on the review of the literature, no apparent differences in the frequency of adverse events are evident between the six-implant or two-rod levonorgestrel systems and the single implant etonogestrel and nomegestrol acetate systems. The most frequent adverse events reported in clinical trials that are probably related to implant use are headaches and acne. Weight gain, dizziness, and mood changes are also frequently mentioned adverse events and are possibly steroid-related. Other possibly related adverse events, although much less frequently reported, are loss of libido, fatigue, hair loss, and other skin conditions. Persistent ovarian follicles that spontaneously disappear are a common event during use of progestin-only contraceptives, and providers should be aware of this condition to avoid unnecessary interventions. Overall, the vast experience reported in the clinical studies reviewed here show that all existing implantable contraceptives are equally safe. This can probably be attributed to the low-hormonal dose delivered by progestin-implant systems.

Norplant and other implantable contraceptives

Implantable contraception represents a safe, reversible form of long-term family planning with distinct advantages. It does not contain estrogen, thus avoiding many of it contraindications. Importantly, it is extremely effective, has high continuation rates, and is well tolerated. The main side effects of Norplant are irregular menstrual bleeding and the occasional difficult removal. Although recent high-profile litigation has severely diminished enthusiasm for Norplant, the FDA has reaffirmed its safety and efficacy. Norplant remains a viable family planning option for carefully selected women. New contraceptive implants may soon be available accentuating the advantages of Norplant while minimizing the disadvantages.

Fluoroscopically guided Norplant removal

The Norplant contraceptive implant system is a commonly used method of contraception worldwide. Implant placement and removal are usually simple office-based outpatient procedures. Norplant removal can occasionally become difficult, usually secondary to improper insertion. In these instances, we describe a method of Norplant removal that can easily be performed with use of high-resolution fluoroscopy with associated digital subtraction imaging.

Implantable contraception

Although levonorgestrel contraceptive implants have been available for over 15 years, innovations have only recently led to a wider choice. These new implants offer easier insertion and removal and other advantages depending on the type of progestin. Implants prevent pregnancy by several mechanisms, including inhibition of ovulation and luteal function and alteration of cervical mucus and the endometrium. The high efficacy and ease of maintenance make implants an ideal contraceptive for many women, including adolescents, a population that uses implants infrequently but reports high satisfaction. Implants are appropriate for women who are breastfeeding, who have contraindications to estrogen, or who have diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, sickle cell anemia, or an HIV infection because implants have few metabolic or hematologic effects. Long-term use has not been associated with a decrease in BMD and generally leads to increased blood levels and iron stores. Women who wish to space their pregnancies appreciate the nearly immediate onset of action with insertion and the rapid termination of all effects with removal. All types of implants lead to menstrual changes and other side effects in some women. Adverse effects that occur in implant users more than the general population include headaches and acne. Women must be thoroughly counseled regarding the potential for menstrual alteration, side effects, and sexually transmitted infections if they do not use condoms. Despite their initial high cost, implants are a cost-effective method over several years, even when discontinued before the life of the implant.

Localization of concealed norplant implants and implant fragments by a modified mammography technique

A modified mammography technique for localization of concealed Norplant implants and Norplant fragments was applied to four patients, ages 18, 35, 22, and 25. A dedicated mammography unit and mammography film screen system affording high resolution and high contrast was applied under the same conditions to each patient. 26 kilovoltage peak (KVp) was used, ranging from 60 to 150 milliamperes. Using both the automatic exposure control and manual techniques, specific milliampere range depended on the specific case. The technique proved successful, as concealed Norplant capsules were exquisitely visualized by films obtained with a Siemens Mammomat 3000. Applying the same modified technique, precise location of the Norplant implants was determined using a fenestrated compression plate with an alphanumeric grid in a manner similar to hookwire localization of breast lesions under mammographic guidance. The capsules were then safely retrieved. We conclude that this modified technique may provide practitioners with valuable assistance in the exact localization of the Norplant capsule(s) or fragments, thereby facilitating their removal. Application of a modified mammography technique reveals precise localization of concealed Norplant capsules facilitating their removal.

"Pop-out" method of levonorgestrel implant removal

The "pop-out" technique is a method of levonorgestrel implant removal that uses digital pressure to direct implants through a small skin incision. This technique was developed, theoretically, to cause less bruising and patient discomfort by avoiding the use of instruments. The pop-out technique is the primary method used for levonorgestrel implant removal in the Magee-Womens Hospital resident clinic. We performed a retrospective analysis of levonorgestrel implant removals performed between July 1, 1995, and December 31, 1998. Of the 168 removals included in this analysis, 38 were performed by one of two attending physicians, and 130 were performed by the residents with attending supervision. The average time for removal was 12 +/- 5 min (range 2.25-27 min) when the "pop-out" method could be used to remove all six implants, and 14 +/- 7 min (range 2.25-59 min) for all removals. The removal time for residents was inversely proportional to the anticipated level of difficulty of the removal and to the number of previous removals performed. The removal time was significantly faster when residents were supervised by one of the attending physicians as compared with the other attending physician. Only 0.7% (7/1,008) of levonorgestrel implants were fragmented during removal. This review shows that the "pop-out" method is a reasonable alternative to other proposed methods of primary implant removal. The difference in the level of expertise of the attending physician may significantly influence removal time when training clinicians in levonorgestrel implant removal.

Real-time ultrasonographically guided removal of nonpalpable and intramuscular Norplant capsules

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to describe the techniques we have developed to remove nonpalpable subcutaneous and intramuscular Norplant capsules with the patient under local anesthesia and with use of real-time ultrasonographic guidance in an office setting.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a noncomparative, descriptive study of our experiences with 27 women with 64 deep Norplant capsules.

RESULTS

Twenty-four women had all their nonpalpable and intramuscular implants removed under real-time ultrasonographic guidance with no complications. One woman was not a candidate, one was lost to follow-up, and another elected to retain her last implant.

CONCLUSION

Real-time ultrasonographically guided procedures can be performed with the patient under local anesthesia in an office setting and can reduce the number of operative procedures necessary to remove nonpalpable and intramuscular Norplant capsules.

Ulnar nerve injury associated with removal of Norplant implants

Improperly placed Norplant implants pose a risk to neurovascular structures at the time of removal. Appropriate attention to insertion and removal should minimize the chance of injury. However, when injuries do occur, a logical and systematic approach to evaluation of the injury can help predict the outcome and establish a plan of care for the patient.

Levonorgestrel subdermal implants. Contraception on trial

When they were introduced to the world market in the 1980s, levonorgestrel subdermal implants offered the promise of an exciting alternative to traditional hormonal contraception. They provide highly effective, long-acting protection from pregnancy, without the need for user compliance. Broad acceptability of the drug has been reported throughout the world. Recently, however, the implants have met with opposition. The drug is associated with a variety of adverse effects, and removal of implants can be problematic. Serious events have been reported in women using levonorgestrel subdermal implants, although causal relationships have not been demonstrated. Additionally, concerns have been raised over the potential for coercive use of the drug. Numerous law suits have been filed alleging serious problems with implants. As a result, the drug has received considerable negative media attention. Before the controversy over levonorgestrel subdermal implants erupted, contraceptive development had declined, resulting from limitations to profits and funding, legal threats, and changes in the insurance industry. The levonorgestrel subdermal implant experience may serve to accelerate this trend. While the introduction of levonorgestrel subdermal implants offered an alternative to the current array of medical contraception, its experience may serve to dampen future contraceptive development efforts. Costly litigation and much controversy involving the implants have acted to create disincentives to further research and development of new methods of medical contraception.

Experience of Finnish women with Norplant insertions and removals

OBJECTIVE

Norplant and Norplant-2 have been available for use by Finnish women since 1984 and 1986, respectively. The objective of this study was to explore Norplant users' experiences of insertions, removals and medical treatments.

DESIGN

A questionnaire was sent to women who had received Norplant or Norplant-2 implants one to two years earlier (n = 262) in normal clinical settings; the response rate was 79%.

RESULTS

At insertion, problems were experienced by 9% and at least some pain by 23% of women. During the first year 20% of all users (14% of Norplant and 33% of Norplant-2 users) had their implants removed. Problems were experienced at removal by 33% of women and pain was experienced by 40%; nevertheless most users were satisfied with the device. Findings were similar for the two types of Norplant. Forty-two percent of the women had received minipills containing levonorgestrel before Norplant insertions in an attempt to assess Norplant's suitability, and 8% had received drugs for adverse effects caused by Norplant.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies including perspectives of Norplant users and the whole lifespan of Norplant (including removal) should be conducted in all clinical settings where Norplant is provided.

Contraceptive efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of Annuelle biodegradable norethindrone pellet implants

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the contraceptive efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of two formulations of Annuelle (Endocon, Inc., South Walpole, MA) biodegradable norethindrone (NET) SC pellet implants.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Two clinical sites in the United States.

PATIENT(S)

Thirty-nine healthy, fertile, sexually active women.

INTERVENTION(S)

Nineteen women received a four-pellet system containing 174 mg NET; 20 women received a five-pellet system containing 266.5 mg NET.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Contraceptive efficacy, median serum NET levels, adverse events.

RESULT(S)

No pregnancies were observed in 293 woman-months in the four-pellet group or in 375 woman-months in the five-pellet group. An initial burst in median serum NET levels occurred in the first 24 hours postinsertion followed by a steady decline over the next 3 years. Norethindrone levels varied considerably among women. The main side effect was bleeding abnormalities, which persisted in half the participants for up to 2 years. No serious adverse events were reported that were related to the pellets. Pellet insertion and removal generally were uncomplicated.

CONCLUSION(S)

Annuelle shows potential as an effective, safe contraceptive with distinct advantages over other long-acting agents, because it is biodegradable but can be removed if problems arise or if fertility is desired.

Norplant implants in the UK: first year continuation and removals

Norplant implants are a long-term, reversible hormonal method of contraception consisting of six flexible capsules placed subdermally in the inner aspect of the non-dominant arm. Norplant implants were introduced into the UK in October 1993 although they had been used previously in some countries for up to ten years. The insertion and removal techniques require skills training and therefore it is important to assess early experience with the method. This survey looks at the first year continuation rate of Norplant implants in the UK from a total of 2,129 insertions. From these insertions, 133 removals were documented and described, using a checklist of features. The continuation rate for Norplant implants use was 96.5% at six months and 85.2% at one year. None of the reasons for discontinuation were of a serious nature. The most common reason given was menstrual change (50.4% of all removals, 3% of all women included in the survey), which is in line with other reported studies. Of the removals, 71.5% were reported as straightforward (of these 65.6% were completed within 20 minutes). In the first year of use, Norplant implants were associated with high continuation rates and the removal procedure was, in the majority of cases, completely straightforward.

Norplant implants acceptability and user satisfaction among women in two African countries

An analysis of 350 users of Norplant contraceptive subdermal implants from six centers in two African countries (Ghana and Nigeria) indicates that method acceptability remained high among the women who used the method for five years. Overall, 90.1% of the 155 five-year users in these countries reported having a very favorable experience and 9.9% a favorable experience with Norplant implants. Ease of use was cited by 56.1% and duration of use by 13.6% of the women as the most liked characteristics of the method at study completion after five years. Menstrual disturbance was the least liked aspect, by 41.9% of the women. On average, women who discontinued early from the study had fewer living children and were more likely to desire additional children at method adoption than those who completed five years of use; the differences were statistically significant. Differences in level of education and previous use of contraception were not found to be statistically significant between completers and non-completers. Differences in age were not significant in Nigeria, but were marginally significant in Ghana, with completers being older than non-completers. Of the clients who completed this study, 79.2% indicated a desire to continue with contraception and 43.9% planned to have a second set of implants inserted. These findings have important implications for counseling, method access and service sustainability in African countries.

Usefulness of a clinical scoring system to anticipate difficulty of Norplant removal

OBJECTIVES

Removal of contraceptive implants (e.g. Norplant) is an issue affecting its worldwide acceptability. Reports of difficult, painful removals have resulted in lawsuits and reduced demand. To improve quality of care, we developed a scoring system to anticipate difficult removals. We report on the usefulness of such a system and present client perspectives about the removal experience.

METHODS

A 9-point scoring system based on the visibility, arrangement, and position (VAP) of Norplant capsules was used to assess the anticipated difficulty of removal in 53 consecutive patients. The VAP score was then correlated with removal time and related parameters.

RESULTS

Mean removal time was 14.74 min (range 4.75-47). In 20% of patients, the VAP score indicated a potentially difficult removal and the VAP score correlated significantly with removal time (r = 0.3, p = 0.05). Patients expected removal to be moderately difficult (mean visual analog score 4.7 out of a possible 10), but after removal they rated the actual removal experience as relatively easy (mean score 2.6/10). Before the removal, only 48% of patients said they would recommend Norplant to a friend but after removal, 70% said they would do so.

CONCLUSIONS

A scoring system such as the VAP score can help identify potentially difficult removals so that an experienced remover can be present at the time of removal or an appropriate referral made. However, the VAP score cannot predict variables such as the density of the subcutaneous fibrous tissue "envelope". Although patient anxiety concerning removal may be high, the presence of a competent remover and an easy removal experience reduces this anxiety and encourages patients to be more positive about this method. The value of having properly trained, competent personnel available to perform removals cannot be over-emphasized.