SavedAdd your journal

Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2019 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2

Removal of a Missing Intrauterine Device via Laparotomy After 28 Years of Insertion: A Case Report

Fatih AKTOZ
Ali Can GUNES
Oğuzhan KURU
ZAFER SELÇUK TUNCER
Pages
117–119
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Management of a patient with intrauterine device should be done carefully and following the instructions before insertion, regular examination at every visit are important.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Intrauterine device is one of the most preferred contraceptive methods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Rare complications such as uterine perforation were getting more common due to increased use of intrauterine device and could be seen either with mild manifestations or serious cases like bladder or intestinal damage.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Management of a patient with intrauterine device should be done carefully and following the instructions before insertion, regular examination at every visit are important.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Intrauterine device is one of the most preferred contraceptive methods. Rare complications such as uterine perforation were getting more common due to increased use of intrauterine device and could be seen either with mild manifestations or serious cases like bladder or intestinal damage. A 48-year-old patient who is consulted to our clinic because of a missed copper intrauterine device was presented. The intrauterine device was inserted 28 years ago, detected in pelvis incidentally by x-ray and extracted via laparotomy. Although device has been in abdomen for nearly three decades, we did not see any serious reaction or adhesion during surgery. Management of a patient with intrauterine device should be done carefully and following the instructions before insertion, regular examination at every visit are important.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKTOZ, F., GUNES, A. C., KURU, O., TUNCER, Z. S. (2019). Removal of a Missing Intrauterine Device via Laparotomy After 28 Years of Insertion: A Case Report. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2, 117–119. https://ajindex.com/articles/159627

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Buhling KJ, Zite NB, Lotke P, Black K. Worldwide use of intrauterine contraception: a review. Contraception 2014; 89(3):162-73.
  2. Kaneshiro B, Aeby T. Long-term safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of the intrauterine Copper T-380A contraceptive device. Int J Women's Health. 2010;2:211-20. Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1987;753:1-91.
  3. Abramovici H, Sorokin Y, Bornstein J, Auslander R. A partial uterine perforation (type 2) by a copper-T IUD: sonographic diagnosis and management. J Ultrasound Med. 1985;4(7):381-3.
  4. Ferguson CA, Costescu D, Jamieson MA, Jong L. Transmural migration and perforation of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system: a case report and review of the literature. Contraception. 2016;93(1):81-6.
  5. Caliskan E, Ozturk N, Dilbaz BO, Dilbaz S. Analysis of risk factors associated with uterine perforation by in- trauterine devices. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2003;8(3):150-5.
  6. Chi IC, Potts M, Wilkens LR, Champion CB. Performance of the copper T-380A intrauterine device in breastfeeding women. Contraception. 1989;39(6):603-18.
  7. Berger-Kulemann V, Einspieler H, Hachemian N, Prayer D, Trattnig S, Weber M, et al. Magnetic field interactions of copper-containing intrauterine devices in 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging: in vivo study. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(3):416-22.
  8. Chang HM, Chen TW, Hsieh CB, Chen CJ, Yu JC, Liu YC, et al. Intrauterine contraceptive device appendicitis: a case report. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11(34):5414-5. Sepúlveda WH, Ciuffardi I, Olivari A, Gallegos O. Sonographic diagnosis of bladder perforation by an in- trauterine device. A case report. J Reprod Med. 1993;38(11):911-3.
  9. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, et al. In: Cunningham FG, editor. Williams obstetrics. New York: McGraw Hill Medical; 2014.
  10. Haimov-Kochman R, Doviner V, Amsalem H, Prus D, Adoni A, Lavy Y. Intraperitoneal levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device following uterine perforation: the role of progestins in adhesion formation. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(5):990-3.
  11. Markovitch O, Klein Z, Gidoni Y, Holzinger M, Beyth Y. Extrauterine mislocated IUD: Is surgical removal manda- tory? Contraception. 2002;66(2):105-8.
  12. Medina TM, Hill DA, DeJesus S, Hoover F. IUD removal with colonoscopy: a case report. J Reprod Med. 2005;50(7):547-9.
  13. Al-Ashwal RH, Aziz NA, Nooh SM. Development of a smart IUD launcher for prevention of uteri