Laparoscopic removal of an intra-abdominal intrauterine device: case and systematic review

Long forgotten perfume bottle nozzle in the uterus: challenges in retrieval in a low resource setting!

Foreign body in the uterus may lead to severe complications and pose significant management dilemmas. We report a 26-year-old lady who presented with foul-smelling discharge, subfertility, and a failed attempt at foreign body removal outside. Pelvic ultrasound revealed an impacted structure in the endocervical canal while a descending pipe was visualized in the endocervical canal per speculum examination. Partial removal vaginally and surgical removal of the nozzle via laparotomy was necessary due to the size, location, and impaction of the object. Posterior uterine incision was used due to easy accessibility. The post-operative stay was uneventful. This case underscores the importance of early detection, imaging, and multidisciplinary management in cases of uterine foreign bodies.

Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Translocation Leading to Right Anteromedial Ovarian Surface Impingement and Laparoscopic Retrieval: A Case Report and Literature Review

We report a rare case of a 29-year old woman presenting with abdominal pain, whose initial examination failed to identify intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) threads. IUCD migration was confirmed by CT scan and subsequent single-port laparoscopic retrieval alleviated her symptoms.

Laparoscopic management of bowel perforation secondary to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device migration: a case report and review of literature

Bowel perforation secondary to a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device is exceptionally rare. We present the case of a woman who exhibited abnormal findings during a colonoscopy examination. Despite undergoing an intrauterine device (IUD) insertion procedure for contraception in 2000, attempts for its removal in 2007 were unsuccessful due to the inability to locate the IUD. In 2022, she presented with intermittent hematochezia and lower left abdominal pain. Subsequent colonoscopy and abdominal computed tomography confirmed the presence of the IUD penetrating the uterine wall and entering the colon. Laparoscopic anterior resection was performed, and the patient's postoperative recovery was uneventful, indicating the viability of laparoscopic treatment as a valuable option.

Migration of Intra-Uterine Devices

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.

Migrated intrauterine device: Case series report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Implantation of an intrauterine device (IUD) is a common method of contraception in Saudi Arabia. Although rare, IUD migration and colon perforation have been reported. The current report presented three cases of IUD migration into the colon and recto-uterine pouch.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

The study included a series of three cases of migrated IUDs. The first case was a 25-year-old female, Gravida 2, Para 2 + 0, at 28 week-gestation, who presented with abdominal pain with a history of IUD placement that had not been removed or imaged before. The patient submitted to the caesarian section (CS), where IUD was found in the sigmoid colon. Elective laparoscopic removal of IUD with resection and primary repair of sigmoid colon was done later. The second case was a 37-year-old female, Gravida 1, Para 1 + 0, non-pregnant hypothyroidism, and a history of IUD placement. The patient got pregnant and gave birth through CS. She was then presented with abdominal pain and requested the removal of the IUD. On colonoscopy, IUD was seen in the pouch of Douglas with no evidence of a fistulous tract. IUD was removed through laparoscopy. The third case was a 47-year-old female, Gravida 14, Para 14 + 0, with a history of previous CS presented with a missing IUD that had been inserted 20 years ago after she had five pregnancies and subsequent deliveries. On colonoscopy, IUD was embedded on the wall of the transverse colon, and through abdominal surgery, IUD was removed by cutting through the colon and primary repair was done. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: the presentation of IUD migration cases was foundto vary according to the site of migration and type of IUD.however the cases are usually present with abdominal pain. An abdominal pelvic imaging with CT in these patients are essential in diagnosis. Retrival of migrating IUDs may be done through colonoscopy, laparoscopy, and in some cases with adhesion laparotomy is the solution.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal and pelvic CT scan are very important in the diagnosis and the localization of IUD. Elective colonoscopy and laparoscopy are successful management approaches for these cases.

Open surgical retrieval of intra-uterine contraceptive device perforating the ileum: A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Intra-uterine contraceptive devices (IUCDs) are globally acknowledged for their high utilization and tolerability as contraceptive techniques. However, the uncommon but critical complication of IUCD perforation and migration into the gastrointestinal (GI) system necessitates careful consideration.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a case of IUCD migration culminating in ileal perforation in a 30-year-old female. The patient, with a history of IUCD insertion four years prior, manifested persistent abdominal discomfort lasting for a period of six months. Computed tomography (CT) scans of the abdomen disclosed the presence of an extraneous object perforating the uterine wall and penetrating the ileum. Surgical intervention substantiated the diagnosis, encompassing the removal of the IUCD and subsequent suturing to amend the bowel wall defect. The patient's post-operative recovery proceeded without additional complications.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Migration and GI perforation of the IUCD are uncommon complications, and require immediate attention and proper management. When there is a suspicion of a missing IUCD, obtaining radiologic confirmation and timely removal is crucial.

CONCLUSION

In females of reproductive age, persistent abdominopelvic pain warrants an evaluation of their IUCD placement history and a thorough examination. If the IUCD string is not visible, further radiological investigation is mandated. Any delay in diagnosis and the ensuing treatment may lead to significant, potentially catastrophic, organ damage.

Intraperitoneally Retained Contraceptive Device After Uterine Perforation: A Case Report

A 29-year-old parous woman with a history of a T-shaped copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion presented 8 months later with a complaint of the contraceptive device being missing. Computed tomography with contrast turned out to be superior to the combined abdominal and pelvic X-ray and transvaginal ultrasound in providing the detailed extrauterine location of the device between the urinary bladder and uterus. A laparoscopy was successful in the atraumatic freeing of the IUD from omental and bladder adhesions, and in its final removal.

Perforation of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system found at one month after insertion: A case report

BACKGROUND

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is widely used in contraception, menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea and to prevent endometrial hyperplasia during estrogen supplementation. Perforation is more often seen after early postpartum placement. Perforation of the LNG-IUS occurring one month after placement is rare.

CASE SUMMARY

A 42-year-old female complained of progressive dysmenorrhea and increased menstrual volume. She was diagnosed with adenomyosis and the LNG-IUS was inserted in her uterine cavity. Routine ultrasound examination one month later revealed that the intra-uterine device (IUD) was not found in the uterine cavity, and further X-ray and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging showed an abnormal signal area in the left posterior region of the uterus. Laparoscopic exploratory surgery was performed and the LNG-IUS was found in the left uterosacral ligament.

CONCLUSION

Perforation of a LNG-IUS occurring one month after placement is rare, and is more common in inexperienced operators and after early postpartum placement. When the operation is difficult, ultrasound monitoring is recommended to reduce the risk of IUD perforation. For patients with inadequate surgery, postoperative imaging is recommended to detect potential risks as soon as possible.

Endourological management of migrated intravesical intrauterine contraceptive device: Neglected case with stone formation

Intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) has been associated with numerous complications such as pelvic discomfort, spontaneous expulsion, and infections. In rare instances, perforation and migration can occur if neglected. We present a rare of 25-year-old female in whom a neglected perforated IUD (Cu-T) after two years completely migrated into the urinary bladder leading to large stone formation. The migrated IUD with stone was successfully managed via minimally invasive endourological management.

A straw entering the abdominal cavity through the female reproductive tract: a case report

In this article, an unusual case of a 27-year-old woman, who presented with abdominal pain for the previous 2 days, is presented. Ultrasonography revealed a perforated uterus and a straw in the abdominal cavity. A foreign body in the abdominal cavity was diagnosed and removed by laparoscopic surgery, and antibiotics were administered. The patient reported no discomfort during follow-up for 1 month. This report highlights the rare case of a foreign body crossing the uterus into the abdominal cavity. The only possible action was immediate surgery to remove the foreign body from the abdominal cavity.

Removal of a Migrated Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Perforating the Terminal Ileum: A Case Report

We aim to present a rare case of a missing intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) that was found in the terminal ileum by laparoscopy and was managed initially by laparoscopy and then proceeded to laparotomy.

A 29-year-old female who had a copper IUCD inserted by a senior gynecologist presented to the clinic with pelvic pain and discomfort. She underwent laparoscopy for IUCD removal. Intraoperatively, the IUCD was discovered to be embedded in the terminal ileum, and therefore, laparoscopy was converted to an open laparotomy. The patient was readmitted multiple times because of abnormal fluid collection in the pelvic region, which was resolved finally by pigtail insertion.

This case sheds a light on the possibility of complications occurring in the medical field even if the practitioner is a senior gynecologist. Furthermore, missed IUCDs require thorough investigation and imaging to make an appropriate management plan to avoid serious complications.

Ectopic intrauterine device in the bladder causing cystolithiasis: A case report

BACKGROUND

An intrauterine device (IUD) is a commonly used contraceptive among women in China. It is widely used because it is safe, effective, simple, economic, and reversible. Among the possible complications, an ectopic IUD in the bladder is rare. It occurs insidiously, has a long course, is associated with a high risk for injury, and is difficult to treat.

CASE SUMMARY

A 44-year-old woman was admitted for repeated episodes of urinary frequency, urgency, and dysuria over three months. Laboratory tests revealed significantly elevated urine leukocytes and bacteria. Urine culture suggested colonization with Enterococcus faecalis. Abdominal computed tomography images suggested an abnormally positioned IUD that was protruding into the bladder. Cystoscopy revealed a metallic foreign body with multiple stones on its surface in the left posterior bladder wall. The foreign body measured approximately 1 cm. Hysteroscopy revealed the arm of a V-type metal IUD embedded in the middle and upper sections of the anterior wall of the cervical canal. The majority of the IUD was located in the uterine cavity. Cystoscopy was performed, and a holmium laser was utilized to break the stones attached to the portion of the IUD in the bladder. The IUD was then removed through hysteroscopy.

CONCLUSION

Ectopic IUDs in the bladder can be diagnosed with thorough imaging and safely removed through cystoscopy or hysteroscopy.

Is It a "Colon Perforation"? A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Background

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are commonly used as a contraceptive method. IUD migration and colon perforation are rare but serious complications occurring sometimes years after insertion.

Case

A 42-year-old woman with complaints of slight abdominal pain underwent a colonoscopy. Colonoscopy showed that a "nail" had penetrated the ascending colon wall and that an arm of the "nail" was embedded in the colon wall. We did not remove the "nail" rashly under colonoscopy. Considering the safety and effectiveness of the patient's operation, we were able to remove the "nail" easily by performing laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) combined with hysteroscopy at the same time.

Conclusion

We report a case of successful removal of a colonic perforation device by colonoscopy, laparoscopy, and hysteroscopy, which is the first method used.

Far migration of an intrauterine contraceptive device from the uterus to the small bowel

A sexually active, asymptomatic 44-year-old presented for Intrauterine device (IUD) removal that had been in place for 13 years. IUD removal was unsuccessful as the strings could not be located. Imaging revealed an extrauterine IUD and at surgical removal of the abdominal IUD a small bowel perforation requiring bowel resection was required. Uterine perforation is a rare complication of IUD use occurring in approximately 1-1.3 in 1000. Risk factors for perforation include provider inexperience, retroverted uterus, immobile uterus, and myometrial defect from a previous cesarean delivery or myomectomy.

Complete sigmoid colon erosion by an intrauterine contraception device in an ectopic pregnancy: a case report

INTRODUCTION An intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) is a common contraception method used for family planning. IUCD erosion into adjacent organs is a rare but serious complication of IUCD use. CASE PRESENTATION A 41-year-old female presented to us with a leaking left ectopic pregnancy. Emergency laparotomy and left salpingectomy were performed. A copper ICUD was found intraperitoneally and part of it had completely eroded into the sigmoid colon. Sigmoid colotomy was performed and the IUCD was removed successfully. Further history revealed that the patient had her IUCD inserted 12 years previously but was forgotten. The patient was discharged well after 4 days of admission. DISCUSSION Erosion of an IUCD into the colon is uncommon and may be asymptomatic or present with bowel perforation and obstruction. There should be a high index of suspicion for pregnancy occurring among women post-IUCD insertion. A misplaced IUCD can cause chronic inflammation of the fallopian tube, which may alter tubal functionality and increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy. Family planning is commonly done in primary health care. Primary care education and counselling are essential to improve awareness of fertile women to prevent similar complications. Periodic examination of IUCD string either by users or primary health-care practitioners is crucial. Ultrasound can be advocated if there are difficulties with the insertion. An abdominal radiograph is useful and should be performed in the case of missing IUCDs.

Incomplete Removal of an Intrauterine Device Perforating the Sigmoid Colon

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are widely used for contraception in South Korea. However, several complications of IUDs have been reported, including inflammation, obstruction, perforation, and fistula. IUD perforation is the rarest of these complications but is also severe. Migrated IUDs can be retrieved through endoscopy, laparoscopy, or laparotomy. Presented below is an atypical case of an IUD perforating the sigmoid colon, which could not be removed endoscopically, and was subsequently incompletely removed through laparoscopic surgery. The present case underlines the importance of appropriate diagnosis and treatment approach in the management of IUD perforation.

Far-migration of an intrauterine device in the intrathoracic cavity: A rare case report

The IUD insertion procedure triggers IUD migration. Women with implanted IUDs should be examined to evaluate the device's position regularly.

A 47-Year-Old Woman with Gastric Transmigration of an Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Managed by Laparoscopic Wedge Gastric Resection

Patient: Female, 47-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Perforated intrauterine contraceptive device

Symptoms: Asymptomatic

Medication:—

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Surgery

Dislocated intrauterine devices: clinical presentations, diagnosis and management

OBJECTIVE

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are globally one of the most popular methods of contraception. Uterine perforation is one of the most significant complications of IUD use and commonly occurs at the time of IUD insertion rather than presenting as delayed migration. This paper reports a series of 13 cases of displaced IUDs requiring retrieval by laparoscopy or laparotomy. All the IUDs were copper bearing and most perforations occurred immediately after IUD insertion.

CASES

In two patients with sigmoid colon injury and IUD penetration of the appendix, laparoscopic management had failed and laparotomy was necessary owing to severe obliteration of the pelvic cavity. In one patient laparotomy was the preferred surgical approach owing to acute bowel perforation. In the remaining patients, the displaced devices were successfully removed by laparoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Uterine perforation and IUD migration to the organs in the abdominopelvic cavity are serious complications of IUD insertion and can be successfully managed by laparoscopy, or by laparotomy in the presence of severe pelvic adhesions or unexpected complications.

Intrauterine device migration into the lumen of large bowel: A case report

•

Colon perforation caused by Intrauterine Device is a rare but severe complication.

•

No similar cases were found after reviewing articles in over a 10-year period.

•

It is still recommended to remove any free foreign body in abdominal cavity.

•

For intraabdominal penetrations, the laparoscopic approach is an appropriate method.

Introduction

Colon perforation caused by the intrauterine device (IUD) migration is rare, but severe complication that can occur years after the insertion. Depending on the location of the injured intestine, the different methods for extracting migrated IUD raging from colonoscopy to laparotomy can be chosen.

Case presentation

A 41-year-old female presented with the discomfort in the epigastric area went to the outpatient clinic. A doctor performed gastroscopy and found a polyp. During a colonoscopy, we found a small solid object protruding through the intestinal wall. CT scan showed IUD like “T” shape foreign body, which longest part was protruding a wall of the colon. After these CT findings, the patient informed us that she had IUD inserted almost ten years ago. We found the device with the laparoscopic approach. IUD was removed and the intestinal damage was repaired during the mini-laparotomy.

Conclusions

Perforation of IUD can be asymptomatic, although sometimes it can cause short-term or long-term symptoms. Penetrated IUDs should be removed whenever identified. For intra-abdominal penetrations, the laparoscopic or mini-laparotomy approach is a safe and appropriate method.

Endoscopic removal of an incidentally discovered intrauterine contraceptive device eroding into the rectum

Intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) is a common birth control method. It is safe but can be associated with serious complications including migration into the peritoneal cavity and penetration into other intra-abdominal and pelvic viscera; most commonly the rectosigmoid colon. Different retrieval methods including endoscopy, laparoscopy or open abdominal surgery have been described. We report the case of 38-year-old woman who became pregnant shortly after insertion of the IUCD 6 years prior to presentation. She delivered vaginally and 'expulsion' of the device was assumed. Some 4 years later, she had another IUCD inserted and remained asymptomatic till she recently presented with iron-deficiency anaemia. As part of the investigation, diagnostic colonoscopy was performed. Surprisingly, the old IUCD was found penetrating into the midrectum. Uneventful endoscopic removal was performed and she remained well at 3-month follow-up. Migrating IUCD remains asymptomatic and may be discovered accidentally during routine investigation for some other symptoms.

Colonoscopic Removal of an Intrauterine Device That Had Perforated the Rectosigmoid Colon

The intrauterine device (IUD) is a widely used contraceptive method. One of the most serious and rare complications of using an IUD is colon perforation. We report a case of colonoscopic removal of an IUD that had perforated into the rectosigmoid colon in a 42-year-old woman who presented with no symptoms. Colonoscopy showed that the IUD had penetrated into rectosigmoid colon wall and that an arm of the IUD was embedded in the colon wall. We were able to remove the IUD easily by using colonoscopy. The endoscopic approach may be considered the first choice therapy for selected patients.

Pelvic abscess complicating sigmoid colon perforation by migrating intrauterine device: A case report and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are commonly used as a contraceptive method. However, they may cause rare but potentially serious complications such as migration through the uterine wall and gastrointestinal perforation.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We report a case of a 26-year woman, carrying an IUD for 2 years, who presented to the emergency with pelvic pain with breakthrough bleeding. Abdominal imaging revealed the presence of two devices the first of which was located in the uterine cavity and the other in the wall of the sigmoid colon associated with a 5-centimeter pelvic collection. Intraoperatively, the IUD was found to be embedded in the wall of the sigmoid colon which was removed by wedge resection of the involved segment followed by a closure of the puncture with drainage.

DISCUSSION

The Intrauterine Device (IUD) is an effective method of contraception, relatively well tolerated, reversible, inexpensive and widely used. However, it is not without risk. Indeed, serious complications can occur such as uterine perforation and migration to adjacent abdomino-pelvic structures. Our observation illustrates its rarity given the fact that this complication has been observed the first time in our department over the last ten years.

CONCLUSION

The migration of IUD must be treated even in asymptomatic patients due to the risk of severe complications.

Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device

Intrauterine device (IUD) is a popular long-acting reversible contraceptive device with an estimated rate of use of about 5.3%. It is highly effective but not without complications, one of which is uterine perforation. The patient was a 32-year-old female who presented with nausea, vomiting and right upper quadrant abdominal pain that was tender on palpation. CT scan was performed and they found signs of acute calculous cholecystitis with incidental finding of a migrated IUD in the left lateral mid-abdomen within the peritoneal cavity. She underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy followed by a successful IUD retrieval. Most uterine perforations occur at the time of insertion; however, partial perforation with subsequent delayed complete perforation may also occur. This case emphasises the importance of a full workup for a missing IUD and that, if incidentally found, IUDs can be removed safely laparoscopically in conjunction with another procedure.

Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: current perspectives

Uterine perforation is an uncommon complication of intrauterine device insertion, with an incidence of one in 1,000 insertions. Perforation may be complete, with the device totally in the abdominal cavity, or partial, with the device to varying degrees within the uterine wall. Some studies show a positive association between lactation and perforation, but a causal relationship has not been established. Very rarely, a device may perforate into bowel or the urinary tract. Perforated intrauterine devices can generally be removed successfully at laparoscopy.

Transmural migration and perforation of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system: a case report and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Uterine perforation is an uncommon yet well-known complication of copper intrauterine devices and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (IUS). While initial extrauterine placement at the time of insertion is felt to be the cause of perforation in most cases, some hypothesize that delayed transmural migration and subsequent perforation can occur with slightly malpositioned or even properly placed devices.

CASE

A 46-year-old female had a 52-mg levonorgestrel IUS inserted for menstrual management and contraception. We arranged a follow-up ultrasound as the uterus was enlarged on bimanual examination and the cavity sounded to 11cm. This ultrasound was completed 6days after insertion and reported the IUS to be in the "upper uterine cavity". Over time, transmural displacement and perforation of the horizontal arms of the device occurred. Computed tomography scans performed over 2years for nongynecologic indications document this gradual migration. A retrospective review of initial ultrasound images showed no evidence of uterine defect, embedment or perforation but the cavity length did appear to be less than 11cm.

CONCLUSIONS

While initial extrauterine placement at the time of insertion is the most common mechanism of perforation, delayed transmural migration is another mechanism that can occur.

Laparoscopic removal of an intrauterine device from the sigmoid colon

Uterine wall perforation which is commonly seen through the posterior wall of the uterus is the most serious complication of an intrauterine device (IUD). We present a case of laparoscopic removal of an IUD from the sigmoid colon in a 31-years-old female who was admitted to hospital with a history of pelvic pain and abnormal vaginal bleeding for one month. The dislocated IUD was removed from the sigmoid colon of laparoscopic intervention without any complications.

In conclusion, the treatment modality for the removal of a dislocated IUD is possible by laparoscopic surgery in selected patients where the dislocated IUD is accessible.

Successful Conservative Management of a Dislocated IUD

Background. Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) are widely utilized all over the world owing to their low cost and high efficacy. Uterine perforation is a rare complication that may occur at IUD insertion resulting in extrauterine location of the IUD. Traditionally, surgical removal of dislocated IUDs has been recommended. Case. A 68-year-old patient who had an IUD (Lippes loop) inserted 32 years ago and whose routine examination incidentally revealed a dislocated IUD in the abdominal cavity. The patient remained asymptomatic during three years of follow-up and the IUD was left in place. Conclusion. Asymptomatic patients, whose vaginal examinations and ultrasonography or X-ray results reveal a dislocated IUD, may benefit from conservative management.

Long-acting reversible contraception in the pediatric emergency department: clinical implications and common challenges

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is recommended as first-line contraception for adolescents and young adults. As the use of LARC increases, pediatric emergency medicine clinicians should be able to recognize different types of LARC and address their common adverse effects, adverse reactions, and complications. This continuing medical education activity provides an overview of LARC and will assist clinicians in the evaluation and management of patients with LARC-associated complaints.

Uterine perforation in an adolescent using an intrauterine device with memory function: a case report and review of the published work

Intrauterine devices (IUD) are the most common method of reversible birth control used worldwide. Adolescents infrequently have uterine perforation caused by IUD, hampering both the diagnosis and treatment. Herein, we report a case of uterine perforation in an 18-year-old primipara after insertion of an IUD that possessed memory function (AiMu MCu). The patient presented with vomiting and abdominal pain after insertion of an AiMu MCu IUD, was treated via laparoscopy and had a full recovery. The present case indicated that uterine perforation caused by an AiMu MCu IUD may occur as a rare complication and that uterine perforation can occur in an adolescent. Clinicians might consider a diagnosis of uterine perforation in an adolescent reporting vomiting and abdominal pain after IUD insertion. Laparoscopy could be a reasonable treatment option for such patients.

Three-dimensional ultrasonography versus two-dimensional ultrasonography for the diagnosis of intrauterine device malposition

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) ultrasonography for the diagnosis of intrauterine device (IUD) malposition.

METHODS

In a prospective study, women with a history of failed IUD removal and/or ultrasonography results indicating malposition were recruited at a center in Hangzhou, China, between March 1, 2009, and September 30, 2011. All patients underwent 2D and 3D ultrasonography. Hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or laparotomy was carried out to remove the IUDs and was considered the gold standard for diagnosing malposition.

RESULTS

Among 130 participants, 128 (98.5%) were diagnosed with IUD malposition by hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or laparotomy. Malposition had been correctly identified with 2D ultrasonography in 83 (64.8%) cases, and with 3D ultrasonography in 107 (83.6%) cases. The diagnostic accuracy of 3D ultrasonography was significantly better than was that of 2D ultrasonography (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of 2D ultrasonography is recommended for the follow-up of women who use IUDs as a contraceptive method. However, 3D ultrasonography should be used when malposition is suspected.

[Intra uterine devices removal during office hysteroscopy: About 36 cases]

OBJECTIVES

To assess effectiveness and patient tolerance of office hysteroscopy performed for the removal of intra-uterine devices (IUDs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single center, retrospective study from May 2005 to June 2012. Analysis of the office hysteroscopy database only retrieving data concerning IUD removals: 36 hysteroscopies were performed for IUD removal with mean age of 40±7 years old (20-51), mean parity of 2.1±1.09 (0-5), and mean gestity of 2.5±1.14 (0-5). The indication was failure of IUD removal in an office setting, mostly because of non-visible sutures (33 cases, 91.6%), in 3 cases owing to broken sutures (8.4%). We performed then an office hysteroscopy using a 5.5mm hysteroscope. Either sutures or the IUD itself were grasped, then removed under visual control. Main end point was technique effectiveness, namely success or failure of IUD removal. Secondary end point equals to patient tolerance.

RESULTS

We included 36 patients. IUD removal was effective in 34 out of 36 cases (94.4% success rate). Patient tolerance was rated good for 12 patients (52%), acceptable for 10 (44%), poor for one (4%) and a vasovagal episode occurred in 3% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Office hysteroscopy performed to remove IUDs difficult to extract is an effective method, generally achieving good patient tolerance and reduced morbidity.

Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine

INTRODUCTION

The intrauterine device (IUD) is a popular family planning method worldwide. Some of the complications associated with insertion of an IUD are well described in the literature. The frequency of IUD perforation is estimated to be between 0.05 and 13 per 1000 insertions. There are many reports of migrated intrauterine devices, but far fewer reports of IUDs which have penetrated into the small intestine.

CASE DESCRIPTION

Herein we report a case of perforated intrauterine device embedded in the small intestine. By using a wound protector retraction device, and fashioning the anastomosis extra-corporeally, we were able to more easily perform this laparoscopically. This left the patient with a quicker recovery, and a better cosmetic result.

DISCUSSION

IUD perforation into the peritoneal cavity is a known complication, and necessitates close follow-up. Most, if not all, should be removed at the time of diagnosis. In the majority of previously reported cases, removal was done through laparotomy. Even in cases where removal was attempted laparoscopically, many were later converted to laparotomy. Surgeons should be aware of different techniques, including using a wound protector retraction device, in order to facilitate laparoscopic removal.

Sigmoid colocolic fistula caused by intrauterine device migration: a case report

Introduction

The intrauterine device is a form of contraception with a long duration of action and few systemic side effects. Migration into the abdominal cavity may occur early or years after insertion giving rise to bowel obstruction, perforation, ischemia, mesenteric injury, strictures or fistulae. Colocolic fistula formation is a rare but serious complication of intrauterine device migration, which may lead to difficulties in diagnosis and device retrieval.

Case presentation

We report the case of a 29-year-old Sri Lankan woman who became pregnant 5 years after intrauterine device insertion. The device could not be located during pregnancy. She was asymptomatic and defaulted follow up during the antenatal period. She had an uncomplicated vaginal delivery. A subsequent laparotomy for device retrieval failed due to technical difficulties. A repeat laparotomy identified a sigmoid colocolic fistula with adhesions to the fallopian tube. The device was removed and colonic defects primarily closed following which the patient made an uneventful recovery.

Conclusions

All translocated intrauterine devices should be removed regardless of type and location. This case illustrates that they may cause complex bowel lesions leading to serious technical difficulties during retrieval. With the increasing use of minimally invasive approaches for intrauterine device retrieval, a low threshold for open surgery in complicated cases is advocated.

Perforated intraperitoneal intrauterine contraceptive devices: diagnosis, management, and clinical outcomes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe a series of intraperitoneal perforated intrauterine contraception devices (IUDs) and to discuss associated findings, methods for diagnosis, and management of this complication.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of surgical database between 1998 and 2012 (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

University medical center.

PATIENTS

Thirty-seven women with a perforated IUD in the intraperitoneal cavity.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen copper IUDs (51%), 17 levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs (LNG-IUDs) (46%), and 1 Lippes loop (3%) were identified. Twenty women (54%) had abdominal pain, 16 (43%) had no symptoms, and 1 (3%) was found to have strings protruding from her anus. Twenty-six women (70%) underwent laparoscopy to remove the IUD, and 6 (16%) underwent hysteroscopy along with laparoscopy. Conversion to laparotomy was required in 4 patients (11%). Two IUDs (5%) caused full-thickness rectouterine fistulas that required laparotomy for repair. Dense adhesions were found in 21 women (57%); and of those, 15 (71%) were associated with a copper IUD. Copper IUDs were significantly more likely than LNG-IUDs to be associated with dense adhesions (p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Perforated IUDs can be asymptomatic or cause short-term and long-term symptoms. Long-term complications include abscess and fistula formation. Copper IUDs cause a greater inflammatory process than do LNG-IUDs. Even if asymptomatic, we advocate prompt removal of all IUDs that perforate into the peritoneal cavity once they are identified. Laparoscopic surgical removal of an intraperitoneal IUD is a safe and preferred method.

Myths and misconceptions about long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)

PURPOSE

To discuss common myths and misconceptions about long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) among patients and health care providers.

METHODS

We address some of these common myths in an effort to provide clinicians with accurate information to discuss options with patients, parents, and referring providers. The list of myths was created through an informal survey of an online listserv of 200 family planning experts and from the experiences of the authors.

RESULTS

When presented with information about LARC, adolescents are more likely to request LARC and are satisfied with LARC. Clinicians have an important role in counseling about and providing LARC to their adolescent patients as well as supporting them in managing associated side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This review article can be used as a resource for contraceptive counseling visits and for the continuing education of health professionals providing adolescent reproductive health care.

Uterine perforation caused by intrauterine devices: clinical course and treatment

STUDY QUESTIONS

What are the symptoms of uterine perforation caused by modern copper intrauterine devices (Cu-IUDs) and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS); how is perforation detected and what are the findings in abdominal surgery?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Symptoms are mostly mild and ∼30% of women are asymptomatic. Surgical findings are mainly minimal; no visceral complications were found in this study. However, adhesions as well as pregnancies seem to be more common among women using Cu-IUDs.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Prior studies and case reports have suggested that uterine perforation by modern IUDs/IUSs is rarely serious.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A retrospective study of 75 patients (54 LNG-IUS and 21 Cu-IUD) treated surgically for uterine perforation between 1996 and 2009.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The patients treated for uterine perforation by an IUD/IUS at clinics of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District were identified using the National Care Register for Health Institutions in Finland. The clinical data were collected from individual patient records.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The majority of patients (n = 53; 71%) had mild symptoms of abnormal bleeding or abdominal pain or both, in combination with missing IUD/IUS threads. Asymptomatic patients (n = 22; 29%) were examined because of missing threads or pregnancy. Failure to remove the IUD/IUS by pulling visible threads was the reason for referral in seven women (9%) requesting removal of the device. Eleven women (15%) were pregnant. Misplaced IUDs/IUSs were localized by a combination of vaginal ultrasonography (US) and X-ray, hysteroscopy or curettage. Only after this were patients treated by means of laparoscopy. The majority (n = 44; 65%) of the 68 intra-abdominal devices were located in the omentum, the remaining 24 (35%) around the uterus. Partial perforation or myometrial embedding was diagnosed in all seven cases (9%) with visible threads, but unsuccessful removal by pulling. During laparoscopy, filmy adhesions were found in 21 patients (30%). Pregnancy (33 versus 7%, P = 0.009) and intra-abdominal adhesions (58 versus 20%, P = 0.002) were significantly more common in the Cu-IUD group. Infections were rare; one non-specific acute abdominal infection, later found to be unrelated to the IUD, led to laparoscopy and in four cases the IUD was surrounded by pus, but there were no symptoms of infection.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study setting revealed only surgically treated symptomatic patients and asymptomatic women attending regular follow-up. Women not treated, but only followed or not attending follow-up, were not identified, excluding the possibility to analyse missed undiagnosed perforations, or conservative follow-up as a treatment option.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

As surgical findings are minimal, asymptomatic women may need no treatment at all. An alternative form of contraception is, however, important as pregnancies do occur. If a woman plans a pregnancy, a misplaced LNG-IUS should be removed, as it may act as a contraceptive.