SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2020 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 4

Pelvic inflammatory disease and contraception: a cross-sectional study in teritary center

Pelvik inflamatuar hastalık ve kontrasepsiyon : Üçüncü basamak merkezde kesitsel bir çalişma

Selçuk KAPLAN
Pınar KIRICI
Pages
454–459
Publication Date
2020-10-22
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)

When the cervicovaginal culture results are evaluated; E.coli positivity was more frequent in patients using CU-IUD and Levonorgesterone IUD (LNG-IUD) (

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The purpose of our study in the light of this information; to investigate the relationship between the contraceptive methods used in the patient population treated for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in a tertiary center with clinical and laboratory features and clinical outcome of PID.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: This is a cross-sectional study using the anamnesis, examination findings, microbiological and pathological evaluation results of vaginal and cytological samples recorded in the hospital database of 974 patients treated with a diagnosis of PID in a tertiary center between 2017 and 2019.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When the cervicovaginal culture results are evaluated; E.coli positivity was more frequent in patients using CU-IUD and Levonorgesterone IUD (LNG-IUD) (
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kontraseptif Ajanlar · Pelvik inflamatuar hastalık · Rahim içi araçlar

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of our study in the light of this information; to investigate the relationship between the contraceptive methods used in the patient population treated for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in a tertiary center with clinical and laboratory features and clinical outcome of PID. Material and Method: This is a cross-sectional study using the anamnesis, examination findings, microbiological and pathological evaluation results of vaginal and cytological samples recorded in the hospital database of 974 patients treated with a diagnosis of PID in a tertiary center between 2017 and 2019. Results: Copper-Intrauterine Device (Cu-IUD) was the most commonly used contraceptive method in women with a history of PID. When the cervicovaginal culture results are evaluated; E.coli positivity was more frequent in patients using CU-IUD and Levonorgesterone IUD (LNG-IUD) (

Özet

Amaç: Bu bilgiler ışığında çalışmamızın amacı; üçüncü basamak bir merkezde pelvik inflamatuar hastalık (PID) için tedavi edilen hasta popülasyonunda kullanılan kontraseptif yöntemler ile PID' nin klinik ve laboratuvar özellikleri ve klinik sonuçları arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmak. Gereç ve Yöntem: 2017-2019 yılları arasında üçüncü basamak bir merkezde PID tanısı ile tedavi edilen 974 hastanın hastane veri tabanına kaydedilen anamnez, muayene bulguları, vajinal ve sitolojik örneklerin mikrobiyolojik ve patolojik değerlendirme sonuçlarının kullanıldığı kesitsel bir çalışmadır. . Bulgular: Bakır-Rahim İçi Araç (Cu-RİA), PID öyküsü olan kadınlarda en sık kullanılan kontraseptif yöntemdi. Servikovajinal kültür sonuçları değerlendirildiğinde; E.coli pozitifliği CU-RİA ve Levonorgesteron RİA (LNG-RİA) kullanan hastalarda daha sıktı (

🔖

Cite This Article

KAPLAN, S., KIRICI, P. (2020). Pelvic inflammatory disease and contraception: a cross-sectional study in teritary center. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 4, 454–459. https://ajindex.com/articles/777037

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Workowski KA, Bolan GA. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015. MMWR. Recommendations and reports: Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and Reports 2015; 64: 1-137.
  2. Ford GW, Decker CF. Pelvic inflammatory disease. Disease-a-month: DM 2016; 62: 301. Campbell S, Monga A. (Eds.). Gynaecology by ten teachers. London: Arnold. 2000, (pp. 41-54).
  3. Kansagara D, Englander H, Salanitro A, et al. Risk prediction models for hospital readmission: a systematic review. JAMA 2011; 306: 1688-98.
  4. Lee NC, Rubin GL, Grimes DA. Measures of sexual behavior and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77: 425-30.
  5. Kreisel K, Torrone E, Bernstein K, Hong J, Gorwitz R. Prevalence of pelvic inflammatory disease in sexually experienced women of reproductive age—United States, 2013–2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017; 66: 80–3.
  6. Trent M, Haggerty CL, Jennings JM, Lee S, Bass DC, Ness R. Adverse adolescent reproductive health outcomes after pelvic inflammatory disease. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011; 165: 49-54.
  7. Goyal M, Hersh A, Luan X, Localio R, Trent M, Zaoutis T. National trends in pelvic inflammatory disease among adolescents in the emergency department. J Adolesc Health 2013; 53: 249-52.
  8. Matters JS, Catchpole M, Smith C. Chlamydia trachomatis: summary and conclusions of CMO’s Expert Advisory Group. 1998. London: Department of Health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1998 Guidelines for the Treatment of Sexually Rransmitted Diseases, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1997; 47: 1- 111. Jatlaoui TC, Riley HEM, Curtis KM. The safety of intrauterine devices among young women: a systematic review. Contraception 2017; 95: 17–39.
  9. Stanwood NL, Garrett JM, Konrad TR. Obstetriciangynecologists and the intrauterine device: A survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 275–80.
  10. Madden T, Allsworth JE, Hladky KJ, Secura GM, Peipert JF. Intrauterine contraception in Saint Louis: A survey of obstetrician and gynecologists’knowledge and attitudes. Contraception 2010; 81: 112–6. Fraser IS. Non-contraceptive health benefits of intrauterine hormonal systems. Contraception, 2010; 82: 396–403. Schindler AE. Non-contraceptive benefits of oral hormonal contraceptives. Int J Endocrinol Metab 2013; 11: 41-7.
  11. Havens JM, Olufajo OA, Cooper ZR, Haider AH, Shah AA, Salim A. Defining rates and risk factors for readmissions following emergency general surgery. JAMA Surg 2016; 151: 330–6.
  12. Brunham RC, Gottlieb SL, Paavonen J. Pelvic inflammat