An Intrauterine Contraceptive Device that Migrated to the Bladder and Encrusted

Key Findings & Data:Side-effects such as vaginal bleeding and localized pelvic pain are most common, and uterine perforation and migration of the ad- jacent organs are rare, but serious, complications.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:Herein we present the case of a 46-year-old woman who had a bladder stone because of an IUD that had migrated to the bladder and encrusted.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) are frequently used for birth control. Side-effects such as vaginal bleeding and localized pelvic pain are most common, and uterine perforation and migration of the ad- jacent organs are rare, but serious, complications. Herein we present the case of a 46-year-old woman who had a bladder stone because of an IUD that had migrated to the bladder and encrusted.

Özet

İntrauterin araçlar (İUA), doğum kontrol yöntemi olarak sık kullanıl- maktadır. Vajinal kanama ve lokalize pelvik ağrı gibi yan etkiler sık görülmekle birlikte uterus perforasyonu, İUA'nın komşu organlara migrasyonu nadir görülen ve ciddi komplikasyonlar arasındadır. Bu olgumuzda İUA'nın mesaneye migre olması sonucu mesane taşı sap- tanan 46 yaşındaki kadın hasta sunulacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARŞIYAKALI, N., ÇULHA, M. G., AKAY, A. F., YÜCETAŞ, U., MANSUROĞLU, B. (2022). An Intrauterine Contraceptive Device that Migrated to the Bladder and Encrusted. İstanbul Medical Journal, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2, 103–105. https://ajindex.com/articles/552086

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

Heartwell SF, Schlesselman S. Risk of uterine perforation among users of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61: 31-6
El-Hefnawy AS, El-Nahas AR, Osman Y, Bazeed MA. Urinary complications of migrated intrauterine contraceptive device. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008; 19: 241-5. [CrossRef] 3. Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, Lahteenmaki P, Heikinheimo O. Intrauterine contraception: incidence and factors associated with uterine perforation--a population-based study. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 2658-63. [CrossRef] 4. Ko PC, Lin YH, Lo TS. Intrauterine contraceptive device migration to the lower urinary tract: report of 2 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 18: 668-70. [CrossRef] 5. Kapp N, Curtis KM. Intrauterine device insertion during the postpartum period: a systematic review. Contraception 2009; 80: 327-36. [CrossRef] 6. Andersson K, Ryde-Blomqvist E, Lindell K, Odlind V, Milsom I. Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey. Contraception. 1998; 57: 251-5. [CrossRef] 7. Kassab B, Audra P. The migrating intrauterine device. Case report and review of the literature. Contraception, fertilite, sexualite (1992). 1999; 27: 696-700
Dietrick DD, Issa MM, Kabalin JN, Bassett JB. Intravesical migration of intrauterine device. J Urol 1992; 147: 132-4. [CrossRef] 9. Ozcelik B, Serin IS, Basbug M, Aygen E, Ekmekcioglu O. Differential diagnosis of intra-uterine device migrating to bladder using radiographic image of calculus formation and review of literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 108: 94-6. [CrossRef] 10. Subramanian V, Athanasias P, Datta S, Anjum A, Croucher C. Surgical options for the retrieval of a migrated intrauterine contraceptive device. J Surg Case Rep 2013; 2013.