Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Contraceptive Implant: An Updated Review of the Evidence

  • Family Planning (A Burke, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The etonogestrel implant is a form of highly effective and long-acting reversible contraception, available in the U.S. as Nexplanon® (Merck and Co, Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, U.S.). It is placed under the skin of the upper arm by health care providers and is approved for use up to 3 years. It is more effective than any other method, including the intrauterine devices (IUDs) and permanent sterilization methods. It has few contraindications, and has high rates of satisfaction and continuation. While irregular bleeding is the most common side effect and reason for discontinuation of the method, most women experience reduced bleeding overall, and it can be used to improve dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, and endometriosis. Complications related to use, insertion, and removal are rare. While the implant has many advantages, it is important for providers of family planning to use a patient-centered approach to counseling about all contraceptives, including highly effective reversible methods, and to support women’s reproductive autonomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Croxatto HB. Mechanisms that explain the contraceptive action of progestin implants for women. Contraception. 2002;65(1):21–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wenzl R, van Beek A, Schnabel P, Huber J. Pharmacokinetics of etonogestrel released from the contraceptive implant Implanon. Contraception. 1998;58(5):283–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schnabel P, Merki-Feld GS, Malvy A, Duijkers I, Mommers E, van den Heuvel MW. Bioequivalence and x-ray visibility of a radiopaque etonogestrel implant versus a non-radiopaque implant: a 3-year, randomized, double-blind study. Clin Drug Investig. 2012;32(6):413–22. This study demonstrates that the addition of barium to the etonogestrel implant allowed it to become visible on x-ray while maintaining bioequivalence to the non-radiopaque implant.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mommers E, Blum GF, Gent TG, Peters KP, Sordal TS, Marintcheva-Petrova M. Nexplanon, a radiopaque etonogestrel implant in combination with a next-generation applicator: 3-year results of a noncomparative multicenter trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(5):388 e1–6. This study demonstrates safety of the radiopaque implant, with no deep insertions and a low complication rate.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. CDC. US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010. Adapted from the World Health Organization Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 4th edition. MMWR. 2010;59:1–84.

  6. Finer LB, Jerman J, Kavanaugh ML. Changes in use of long-acting contraceptive methods in the United States, 2007–2009. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(4):893–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, Petrosky E, Madden T, Eisenberg D, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1105–13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Watkins ES. From breakthrough to bust: the brief life of Norplant, the contraceptive implant. J Wom Hist. 2010;22(3):88–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Davies GC, Feng LX, Newton JR, Van Beek A, Coelingh-Bennink HJ. Release characteristics, ovarian activity and menstrual bleeding pattern with a single contraceptive implant releasing 3-ketodesogestrel. Contraception. 1993;47(3):251–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Makarainen L, van Beek A, Tuomivaara L, Asplund B, Bennink CH. Ovarian function during the use of a single contraceptive implant: Implanon compared with Norplant. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(4):714–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, Cates W, Stewart F. Contraceptive Technology. 19th ed. New York: Ardent Media; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Darney P, Patel A, Rosen K, Shapiro LS, Kaunitz AM. Safety and efficacy of a single-rod etonogestrel implant (Implanon): results from 11 international clinical trials. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(5):1646–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83(5):397–404.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Buckel C, Madden T, Allsworth JE, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. New Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1998–2007. This large study demonstrates the superior effectiveness of long acting contraceptive methods over shorter acting methods.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Zheng SR, Zheng HM, Qian SZ, Sang GW, Kaper RF. A randomized multicenter study comparing the efficacy and bleeding pattern of a single-rod (Implanon) and a six-capsule (Norplant) hormonal contraceptive implant. Contraception. 1999;60(1):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Graesslin O, Korver T. The contraceptive efficacy of Implanon: a review of clinical trials and marketing experience. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008;13 Suppl 1:4–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Funk S, Miller MM, Mishell Jr DR, Archer DF, Poindexter A, Schmidt J, et al. Safety and efficacy of Implanon, a single-rod implantable contraceptive containing etonogestrel. Contraception. 2005;71(5):319–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Flores JB, Balderas ML, Bonilla MC, Vazquez-Estrada L. Clinical experience and acceptability of the etonogestrel subdermal contraceptive implant. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;90(3):228–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Harrison-Woolrych M, Hill R. Unintended pregnancies with the etonogestrel implant (Implanon): a case series from postmarketing experience in Australia. Contraception. 2005;71(4):306–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bennink HJ. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of Implanon, a single-rod etonogestrel contraceptive implant. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2000;5 Suppl 2:12–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mornar S, Chan LN, Mistretta S, Neustadt A, Martins S, Gilliam M. Pharmacokinetics of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant in obese women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(2):110 e1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Chen M, Otterness C, Westhoff C, Edelman A, et al. Hormonal contraceptives for contraception in overweight or obese women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD008452.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Xu H, Wade JA, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Madden T, Secura GM. Contraceptive failure rates of etonogestrel subdermal implants in overweight and obese women. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(1):21–6. This large study demonstrates that the implant does not lose effectiveness in overweight or obese women.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Merck Pharmaceuticals. (2001, revised 7/2014). Nexplanon: highlights of prescribing information. Retrieved from http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/n/nexplanon/nexplanon_pi.pdf.

  25. Kiriwat O, Patanayindee A, Koetsawang S, Korver T, Bennink HJ. A 4-year pilot study on the efficacy and safety of Implanon, a single-rod hormonal contraceptive implant, in healthy women in Thailand. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1998;3(2):85–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Affandi B, Korver T, Geurts TB, Coelingh Bennink HJ. A pilot efficacy study with a single-rod contraceptive implant (Implanon) in 200 Indonesian women treated for < or = 4 years. Contraception. 1999;59(3):167–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cea Soriano L, Wallander MA, Andersson S, Filonenko A, Garcia Rodriguez LA. The continuation rates of long-acting reversible contraceptives in UK general practice using data from The Health Improvement Network. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(1):52–8.

  28. O'Neil-Callahan M, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Madden T, Secura G. Twenty-four-month continuation of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):1083–91. This large study demonstrates that the high continuation of LARC methods persists to 24 months after starting the methods, and remains much higher than shorter-acting methods.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Teunissen AM, Grimm B, Roumen FJ. Continuation rates of the subdermal contraceptive Implanon((R)) and associated influencing factors. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2014;19(1):15–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Weisberg E, Bateson D, McGeechan K, Mohapatra L. A three-year comparative study of continuation rates, bleeding patterns and satisfaction in Australian women using a subdermal contraceptive implant or progestogen releasing-intrauterine system. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2014;19(1):5–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wilson S, Tennant C, Sammel MD, Schreiber C. Immediate postpartum etonogestrel implant: a contraception option with long-term continuation. Contraception. 2014;90(3):259–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Grunloh DS, Casner T, Secura GM, Peipert JF, Madden T. Characteristics Associated With Discontinuation of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Within the First 6 Months of Use. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1214–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Short M, Dallay D, Omokanye S, Stauch K, Inki P. Acceptability of long-acting, progestin-only contraception in Europe: a two-year prospective, non-interventional study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2014;19(1):29–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Ireland LD, Goyal V, Raker CA, Murray A, Allen RH. The effect of immediate postpartum compared to delayed postpartum and interval etonogestrel contraceptive implant insertion on removal rates for bleeding. Contraception. 2014;90(3):253–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Madden T, Eisenberg DL, Zhao Q, Buckel C, Secura GM, Peipert JF. Continuation of the etonogestrel implant in women undergoing immediate postabortion placement. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1053–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mark A, Sonalkar S, Borgatta L. One-year continuation of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant in women with postabortion or interval placement. Contraception. 2013;88(5):619–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Diedrich JT, Desai S, Zhao Q, Secura G, Madden T, Peipert JF. Association of short-term bleeding and cramping patterns with long-acting reversible contraceptive method satisfaction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(1):50.e1–8.

  38. ACOG. ACOG Committee Opinion no. 450: Increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Gynecologic Practice, and Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1434–8.

  39. ACOG. ACOG Committee Opinion no. 539: Adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Adolescent Health Care, and Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(4):983–8. This committee opinion expresses that not only are adolescents good candidates for implants and IUDs, but because of their safety and many advantages, they should be offered first line.

  40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013. Adapted from the World Health Organization Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2nd edition. MMWR, 2010;62:1–46.

  41. Davis D. Review prepared for the FDA in 2001. Teratogenic Risk of Hormonal Products for Contraception: A Review of the Literature, http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/briefing/4015B1_14_FDATab5-3-TeratogenReview.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2014.

  42. Levine JP, Sinofsky FE, Christ MF, Implanon USSG. Assessment of Implanon insertion and removal. Contraception. 2008;78(5):409–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 110: noncontraceptive uses of hormonal contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(1):206–18

  44. Mansour D, Korver T, Marintcheva-Petrova M, Fraser IS. The effects of Implanon on menstrual bleeding patterns. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008;13 Suppl 1:13–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Casey PM, Long ME, Marnach ML, Bury JE. Bleeding related to etonogestrel subdermal implant in a US population. Contraception. 2011;83(5):426–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Walch K, Unfried G, Huber J, Kurz C, van Trotsenburg M, Pernicka E, et al. Implanon versus medroxyprogesterone acetate: effects on pain scores in patients with symptomatic endometriosis–a pilot study. Contraception. 2009;79(1):29–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Surrey ES. The role of progestins in treating the pain of endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(6):528–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shokeir T, Amr M, Abdelshaheed M. The efficacy of Implanon for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain associated with pelvic congestion: 1-year randomized controlled pilot study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(3):437–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zheng SR, Zheng HM, Qian SZ, Sang GW, Kaper RF. A long-term study of the efficacy and acceptability of a single-rod hormonal contraceptive implant (Implanon) in healthy women in China. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1999;4(2):85–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Deokar AM, Jackson W, Omar HA. Menstrual bleeding patterns in adolescents using etonogestrel (ENG) implant. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2011;23(1):75–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Casey PM, Long ME, Marnach ML, Fleming-Harvey J, Drozdowicz LB, Weaver AL. Association of body mass index with removal of etonogestrel subdermal implant. Contraception. 2013;87(3):370–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Mansour D, Bahamondes L, Critchley H, Darney P, Fraser IS. The management of unacceptable bleeding patterns in etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant users. Contraception. 2011;83(3):202–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Abdel-Aleem H, d'Arcangues C, Vogelsong KM, Gaffield ML, Gulmezoglu AM. Treatment of vaginal bleeding irregularities induced by progestin only contraceptives. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;10:CD003449.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Casey PM, Long ME, Drozdowicz LB, Marnach ML, Weaver AL. Management of etonogestrel subdermal implant-related bleeding. J Reprod Med. 2014;59(5–6):306–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Halpern V, Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Gallo MF. Strategies to improve adherence and acceptability of hormonal methods of contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;4:CD004317.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lopez LM, Edelman A, Chen M, Otterness C, Trussell J, Helmerhorst FM. Progestin-only contraceptives: effects on weight. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD008815.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Vickery Z, Madden T, Zhao Q, Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Peipert JF. Weight change at 12 months in users of three progestin-only contraceptive methods. Contraception. 2013;88(4):503–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Nault AM, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Madden T, Secura GM. Validity of perceived weight gain in women using long-acting reversible contraception and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(1):48 e1–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Seven A, Yuksel B, Kilic S, Esen H, Keskin U, Ulubay M, et al. Effect of injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate and etonogestrel implants on GABA-A and serotonin receptors in white and gray matter of the brain: experimental study in rats. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30(4):320–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Kapp N, Curtis K, Nanda K. Progestogen-only contraceptive use among breastfeeding women: a systematic review. Contraception. 2010;82(1):17–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Bahamondes L, Bahamondes MV, Modesto W, Tilley IB, Magalhaes A, Pinto e Silva JL, et al. Effect of hormonal contraceptives during breastfeeding on infant's milk ingestion and growth. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):445–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Gurtcheff SE, Turok DK, Stoddard G, Murphy PA, Gibson M, Jones KP. Lactogenesis after early postpartum use of the contraceptive implant: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1114–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Schulz KF, Curtis KM, Chen M. Steroidal contraceptives: effect on bone fractures in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;6:CD006033.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pongsatha S, Ekmahachai M, Suntornlimsiri N, Morakote N, Chaovisitsaree S. Bone mineral density in women using the subdermal contraceptive implant Implanon for at least 2 years. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109(3):223–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Bahamondes L, Monteiro-Dantas C, Espejo-Arce X, Dos Santos Fernandes AM, Lui-Filho JF, Perrotti M, et al. A prospective study of the forearm bone density of users of etonorgestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(2):466–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Monteiro-Dantas C, Espejo-Arce X, Lui-Filho JF, Fernandes AM, Monteiro I, Bahamondes L. A three-year longitudinal evaluation of the forearm bone density of users of etonogestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants. Reprod Health. 2007;4:11.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. World Health Organization Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Cardiovascular disease and use of oral and injectable progestogen-only contraceptives and combined injectable contraceptives. Results of an international, multicenter, case-control study. Contraception. 1998;57(5):315–24.

  68. Heinemann LA, Assmann A, DoMinh T, Garbe E. Oral progestogen-only contraceptives and cardiovascular risk: results from the Transnational Study on Oral Contraceptives and the Health of Young Women. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1999;4(2):67–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Vasilakis C, Jick H, Del Mar Melero-Montes M. Risk of idiopathic venous thromboembolism in users of progestagens alone. Lancet. 1999;354(9190):1610–1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Brito MB, Ferriani RA, Meijers JC, Garcia AA, Quintana SM, Silva de Sa MF. Effects of the etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant inserted immediately postpartum on maternal hemostasis: a randomized controlled trial. Thromb Res. 2012;130(3):355–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Inal MM, Yildirim Y, Ertopcu K, Avci ME, Ozelmas I, Tinar S. Effect of the subdermal contraceptive etonogestrel implant (Implanon) on biochemical and hormonal parameters (three years follow-up). Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008;13(3):238–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Merki-Feld GS, Imthurn B, Seifert B. Effects of the progestagen-only contraceptive implant Implanon on cardiovascular risk factors. Clin Endocrinol. 2008;68(3):355–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Taheri M, Rahimi M, Naderi M, Ghavami S, Mokhtari M, Rashidi H, et al. Effects of a subdermal levonorgestrel contraceptive implant (Norplant) on serum cholesterol, triglycerides, ALT and AST in Iranian women. Contraception. 2006;73(1):56–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Blumenthal PD, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Marintcheva-Petrova M. Tolerability and clinical safety of Implanon. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008;13 Suppl 1:29–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Egberg N, van Beek A, Gunnervik C, Hulkko S, Hirvonen E, Larsson-Cohn U, et al. Effects on the hemostatic system and liver function in relation to Implanon and Norplant. Prospect Random Clin Trial Contracept. 1998;58(2):93–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Hernandez-Juarez J, Garcia-Latorre EA, Moreno-Hernandez M, Moran-Perez JF, Rodriguez-Escobedo MA, Cogque-Hernandez G, et al. Metabolic effects of the contraceptive skin patch and subdermal contraceptive implant in Mexican women: a prospective study. Reprod Health. 2014;11:33.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Brache V, Faundes A, Alvarez F, Cochon L. Nonmenstrual adverse events during use of implantable contraceptives for women: data from clinical trials. Contraception. 2002;65(1):63–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Osman N, Mirlesse V. A new complication of contraceptive hormonal implant: about two cases of lesions of the ulnar nerve at the arm level. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005;33(5):322–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Brown M, Britton J. Neuropathy associated with etonogestrel implant insertion. Contraception. 2012;86(5):591–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Agrawal A, Robinson C. Spontaneous snapping of an Implanon in two halves in situ. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care Fac Fam Plan Reprod Health Care Roy Coll Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;29(4):238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Croxatto HB, Urbancsek J, Massai R, Coelingh Bennink H, van Beek A. A multicentre efficacy and safety study of the single contraceptive implant Implanon. Implanon Study Group. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(4):976–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Ismail H, Mansour D, Singh M. Migration of Implanon. J Fam Plan Reprod Health Care Fac Fam Plan Reprod Health CareRoy Coll Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;32(3):157–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Vidin E, Garbin O, Rodriguez B, Favre R, Bettahar-Lebugle K. Removal of etonogestrel contraceptive implants in the operating theater: report on 28 cases. Contraception. 2007;76(1):35–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Brown SS, Burdette L, Rodriguez P. Looking inward: provider-based barriers to contraception among teens and young adults. Contraception. 2008;78(5):355–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Goodman S, Hendlish SK, Benedict C, Reeves MF, Pera-Floyd M, Foster-Rosales A. Increasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to post-abortal and interval insertion. Contraception. 2008;78(2):136–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Speidel JJ, Harper CC, Shields WC. The potential of long-acting reversible contraception to decrease unintended pregnancy. Contraception. 2008;78(3):197–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Dehlendorf C, Levy K, Ruskin R, Steinauer J. Health care providers' knowledge about contraceptive evidence: a barrier to quality family planning care? Contraception. 2010;81(4):292–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Greenberg KB, Makino KK, Coles MS. Factors associated with provision of long-acting reversible contraception among adolescent health care providers. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(3):372–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Herbitter C, Greenberg M, Fletcher J, Query C, Dalby J, Gold M. Family planning training in US family medicine residencies. Fam Med. 2011;43(8):574–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Trussell J, Henry N, Hassan F, Prezioso A, Law A, Filonenko A. Burden of unintended pregnancy in the United States: potential savings with increased use of long-acting reversible contraception. Contraception. 2013;87(2):154–61.

  91. Peipert JF, Madden T, Allsworth JE, Secura GM. Preventing unintended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(6):1291–7.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Foster DG, Rostovtseva DP, Brindis CD, Biggs MA, Hulett D, Darney PD. Cost savings from the provision of specific methods of contraception in a publicly funded program. Am J Publ Health. 2009;99(3):446–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Baldwin MK, Edelman AB. The effect of long-acting reversible contraception on rapid repeat pregnancy in adolescents: a review. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(4 Suppl):S47–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Tocce KM, Sheeder JL, Teal SB. Rapid repeat pregnancy in adolescents: do immediate postpartum contraceptive implants make a difference? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(6):481 e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Ethier K, Moskosky S. Meeting the contraceptive needs of teens and young adults: youth-friendly and long-acting reversible contraceptive services in u.s. Family planning facilities. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(3):284–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Gilliam ML, Martins SL, Bartlett E, Mistretta SQ, Holl JL. Development and testing of an iOS waiting room "app" for contraceptive counseling in a Title X family planning clinic. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:481.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Higgins JA. Celebration meets caution: LARC's boons, potential busts, and the benefits of a reproductive justice approach. Contraception. 2014;89(4):237–41. This commentary remarks that while the LARC methods have many advantages, it is important for family planning providers to maintain a reproductive justice approach when providing contraception. Otherwise, it is possible for these methods to be overly emphasized with great cost to women's reproductive autonomy, particularly women of color or low socioeconomic status.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Dehlendorf C, Ruskin R, Grumbach K, Vittinghoff E, Bibbins-Domingo K, Schillinger D, et al. Recommendations for intrauterine contraception: a randomized trial of the effects of patients' race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(4):319 e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Hoggart L, Newton VL, Dickson J. "I think it depends on the body, with mine it didn't work": explaining young women's contraceptive implant removal. Contraception. 2013;88(5):636–40. This qualitative study is the first to examine women's experiences with removal of the contraceptive implant. It explores women's decision making about implant removal, and also demonstrates that some women seeking to discontinue the method may encounter resistance from their providers.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Jennifer Amico, Bhavik Kumar, Hilary Rosenstein, and Marji Gold declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, 3544 Jerome Ave, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA

    Jennifer Amico, Bhavik Kumar, Hilary Rosenstein & Marji Gold

Authors
  1. Jennifer Amico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bhavik Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hilary Rosenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marji Gold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Amico.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Family Planning

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amico, J., Kumar, B., Rosenstein, H. et al. The Contraceptive Implant: An Updated Review of the Evidence. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 4, 79–88 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-014-0110-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-014-0110-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation