Advertisement

Association of the Position of the Copper T 380A as Determined by the Ultrasonography Following its Insertion in the Immediate Postpartum Period with the Subsequent Complications: An Observational Study

  • Swati Gupta
  • Shashiprateek MalikEmail author
  • Renuka Sinha
  • Saritha Shyamsunder
  • M. K. Mittal
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Incorrectly placed copper T 380A leads to increased contraception failure. This study aimed to find an association between the ultrasonographic position of the copper T 380A in the immediate postpartum period and the adverse effects observed during the period of 6 months after its insertion.

Methods

This descriptive study was carried out in the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology of a tertiary-care-center of India from September 2011 to February 2013. The women eligible for immediate postpartum copper T 380A insertion with previous regular menstrual cycles for at least 6 months before the current pregnancy, and those who were willing for follow-up visits and had easy accessibility to the hospital, were recruited. A clinical evaluation and ultrasonographic assessment of Intra-Uterine-Contraceptive-Device (IUCD) after insertion was carried out after enrolment. The complications (expulsions, vaginal discharge, menstrual irregularity, and lower abdominal pain) were subsequently assessed during a 6-month follow-up period. The primary objective was the ultrasonographic assessment of the placement of IUCD immediately after insertion. The incidence of complications and their association with the presence of malposition was also studied.

Results

Hundred patients were evaluated during the study period. Forty-four (44 %) women were found to have malpositioned IUCDs on ultrasonographic evaluation done following insertion. The complications among the IUCD users included menstrual irregularity (27.17 %), pain in lower abdomen (20.65 %), vaginal discharge (7.6 %), and expulsions (9.7 %). The IUCD expulsions, menstrual irregularities, and pain were significantly more in patients with malpositions (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Malpositioning of IUCD is common immediately following insertion and is significantly associated with more complications during the follow-up.

Keywords

IUCD Malposition Expulsion Menstrual irregularity Contraception 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Dr. Puneet Jain (MD, DM) for help in the statistical analysis.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Grimes DA, Lopez LM, Schulz KF, et al. Immediate post-partum insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Online. 2010;5:CD003036.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anteby E, Revel A, Ben-Chetrit A, et al. Intrauterine device failure: relation to its location within the uterine cavity. Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Jan;81:112–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rimmer E, Jamieson MA, James P. Malposition and expulsion of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system among women with inherited bleeding disorders. Haemophilia. 2013;19:933–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braaten KP, Benson CB, Maurer R, et al. Malpositioned intrauterine contraceptive devices: risk factors, outcomes, and future pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1014–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shipp TD, Bromley B, Benacerraf BR. The width of the uterine cavity is narrower in patients with an embedded intrauterine device (IUD) compared to a normally positioned IUD. J Ultrasound Med Off J Am Inst Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:1453–6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petta CA, Faúndes D, Pimentel E, et al. The use of vaginal ultrasound to identify copper T IUDs at high risk of expulsion. Contraception. 1996;54:287–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peri N, Graham D, Levine D. Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices. J Ultrasound Med Off J Am Inst Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:1389–401.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boortz HE, Margolis DJA, Ragavendra N, et al. Migration of intrauterine devices: radiologic findings and implications for patient care. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc North Am Inc. 2012;32:335–52.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Kroon CD, van Houwelingen JC, Trimbos JB, et al. The value of transvaginal ultrasound to monitor the position of an intrauterine device after insertion. A technology assessment study. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2003;18:2323–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    WHO. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use: a WHO family planning cornerstone [internet]. 4th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138639/. Accessed 11 Sep 2013.
  11. 11.
    Stanback J, Katz K. Methodological quality of WHO medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Contraception. 2002;66:1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faúndes D, Bahamondes L, Faúndes A, et al. No relationship between the IUD position evaluated by ultrasound and complaints of bleeding and pain. Contraception. 1997;56:43–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parikh V, Gandhi AS. Safety of copper T as contraceptive after caesarean section. J Indian Med Assoc. 1989;87:113–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chi IC, Waszak CS, Wilkens LR. Do insertion-related problems affect subsequent IUD performance? Contraception. 1986;34:497–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chi IC, Ji G, Siemens AJ, et al. IUD insertion at cesarean section–the Chinese experience. Adv Contracept Off J Soc Adv Contracept. 1986;2:145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xu J, Zhuang L, Yu G. Comparison of two techniques used in immediate postplacental insertion of TCu 380A intrauterine device: 12 month follow-up of 910 cases. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 1997;32:354–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shukla M, Qureshi S, Chandrawati. Post-placental intrauterine device insertion–a five year experience at a tertiary care centre in north India. Indian J Med Res. 2012;136:432–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Celen S, Möröy P, Sucak A, et al. Clinical outcomes of early postplacental insertion of intrauterine contraceptive devices. Contraception. 2004;69:279–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eroğlu K, Akkuzu G, Vural G, et al. Comparison of efficacy and complications of IUD insertion in immediate postplacental/early postpartum period with interval period: 1 year follow-up. Contraception. 2006;74:376–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moschos E, Twickler DM. Intrauterine devices in early pregnancy: findings on ultrasound and clinical outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(427):e1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tadesse E, Wamsteker K. Evaluation of 24 patients with IUD-related problems: hysteroscopic findings. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1985;19:37–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Swati Gupta
    • 1
  • Shashiprateek Malik
    • 1
    Email author
  • Renuka Sinha
    • 1
  • Saritha Shyamsunder
    • 1
  • M. K. Mittal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyVardhman Mahavir Medical College and Associated Safdarjung HospitalNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of RadiodiagnosisVardhman Mahavir Medical College and Associated Safdarjung HospitalNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations