Skip to main content
Log in

Weiterentwicklung intrauteriner Kontrazeptionssysteme

New developments in intrauterine contraception systems

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Gynäkologe Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Intrauterine Kontrazeptiva gewinnen als Langzeitkontrazeptionsmethoden mehr und mehr an Bedeutung. Dies gilt besonders für Frauen, die mit der Pilleneinnahme Complianceprobleme haben. Auch in Risikosituationen, in denen absolute und relative Kontraindikationen für andere Methoden bestehen, ist eine intrauterine Verhütung zu favorisieren (WHO[World Health Organization]-Empfehlung). Es gibt für alle intrauterinen Kontrazeptionsmethoden nur wenige lokale Kontraindikationen, wie submuköse Myome oder Uterusfehlbildungen. Als nichthormonelle intrauterine Kontrazeptionsmethode haben sich Kupfer-IUD („intrauterine devices“) seit vielen Jahren bewährt. Als Weiterentwicklung ist die Kupferkette zu sehen, die durch einen speziellen Fixationsmechanismus spezifische Vor- und Nachteile aufweist. Eine aktuelle Neuentwicklung ist der Kupferperlenball, zu welchem größere Studien noch fehlen. Eine Alternative stellen LNG-IUS (Levonorgestrel-Intrauterinsysteme) dar, die in verschiedenen Dosierungen und Größen verfügbar sind und somit auch für die Kontrazeption bei jungen Frauen und Nullipara entsprechend der WHO-Empfehlung geeignet sind. Hier bestehen wenige spezifische Kontraindikationen, die zu beachten sind, auch wenn die systemische Gestagenwirkung gering ist. Vorteile der LNG-IUS ist die positive Beeinflussung von Blutungsmustern und auch von Dysmenorrhö durch die lokale Gestagenwirkung. Dies sollte bei der Auswahl der Methoden Berücksichtigung finden. Komplikationen bei der Anwendung von IUD und IUS sind relativ selten, wie z. B. Expulsion oder Perforation. Die Versagerquote ist im Vergleich zu anderen Kontrazeptionsmethoden gering, da dies eine patientenunabhängige Methode ist. IUD und IUS werden auch dank der neueren Weiterentwicklungen in Zukunft noch größere Bedeutung in der Kontrazeption auch für junge Frauen erlangen.

Abstract

Intrauterine contraception is becoming more and more important as a long-term contraception method. This is especially true for woman who have compliance problems with the intake of oral contraceptives. Intrauterine contraception is the favored method in risk situations, if there are absolute and relative contraindications for other contraceptive methods (WHO recommendation). All intrauterine contraceptive methods have only a few local contraindications, such as submucous fibroids or uterus malformations. Copper intrauterine devices (cu-IUD) have been well-established nonhormonal uterine contraceptive methods for many years. A new development is the frameless IUD, with specific advantages and disadvantages. A further development is the copper chain which has specific advantages and disadvantages due to a special fixation method. A current new type is the intrauterine ball but extensive studies are not yet available. An alternative method is the use of levonorgestrel intrauterine systems (LNG-IUS), which are available in different sizes and doses. According to the WHO recommendation the use of an LNG-IUS is also possible for contraception in young women and nulliparous women. Some specific contraindications should be considered although the systemic effect of progestogens is low. Advantages of LNG-IUS are the positive influence on bleeding patterns and dysmenorrhea by the local effects of progestogens. This should be considered in the selection of an intrauterine contraceptive method. The risk of complications, such as expulsion or perforation during use of an IUD and IUS is low. The failure rate is low in comparison to other contraceptive methods because it is a patient-independent method. The IUD and IUS will become even more important in the contraception of young women in the future due to new developments in this field.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Andersson K, Odilin V, Rybo G (1994) Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova-T) IUDs during five years of user: a randomized comparative trial. Contraception 49:56–72

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Backman T, Rauramo I, Jaakkola K et al (2005) Use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and breast cancer. Obstet Gynecol 106:813–817

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bragheto AM, Caserta N, Bahamondes L et al (2007) Effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in the treatment of adenomyosis diagnosed and monitored by magnetic resonance imaging. Contraception 76:195–199

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chi C, Huq FY, Kadir RA (2011) Levonorgestrel-releasing intratuerine system for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding in women with inherited bleeding disorders: long-term follow-up. Contraception 83:242–247

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Correia L et al (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging and gynecological devices. Contraception 85:538–543

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Darney PD et al (2018) Amenorrhea rates and predictors during 1 year of levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system use. Contraception 97:210–214

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dinger J, Bardenheuer K, Minh TD (2011) Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intratuerine devices and the risk of breast cancer. Contraception 83:211–217

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gemzell-Danielsson K, Apter D, Dermout S et al (2016) Evaluation of a new, low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive system over 5 years of use. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 210:22–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hasskamp T, Wildemeersch D (2016) A new hysteroscopic technique for reversible long-acting reproductive control (ReLARC®) as an alternative to laparoscopic sterilization and Essure. Clin Obstet Gynecol Reprod Med 2:213–216

    Google Scholar 

  10. Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Minh TD (2015) Comparative contraceptive effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices: the European Active Surveillance Study for Intrauterine Devices. Contraception 91:280–283

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S et al (2015) Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper Interauterine devices in the European active surveillance study on intrauterine devices. Contraception 91:274–279

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jareid M et al (2018) Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer, without increased risk of breast cancer. Results from the NOWAC Study. Gynecol Oncol 149:127–132

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marions L, Lovkvist L, Taube A et al (2011) Use of the levonorgestrel releasing-intrauterine system in nulliparous women—a non-interventional study in Sweden. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 16:126–134

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meirik O, Rowe PJ, Peregoudov A et al (2009) The frameless copper IUD (Gynefix) and the TCu380A IUD: results of an 8‑year multicenter randomized comparative trial. Contraception 80:133–141

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mühler M, Taupnitz M (2006) Wie sicher ist die MRT bei Patientinnen mit kontrazeptiven Implantaten? Radiologe 46:574–578

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nelson A, Apter D, Hauck B et al (2013) Two low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine Contraceptive systems: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 122:1205–1213

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nilsson CG, Lahteenmaki PL, Luukkainen T (1984) Ovarian function in amenorrheic and menstruating users of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. Fertil Steril 41:52–55

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Oppelt P et al (2017) What do patients want to know about contraception an which method would they prefer? Arch Gynecol Obstet 295:1483–1491

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rabe T, Albring C et al (2014) Notfallkontrazeption – ein Update. Frauenarzt 55:774–779

    Google Scholar 

  20. Römer T (2012) Intrauterine hormonelle Kontrazeption. J Gynäkol Endokrinol 22:16–22

    Google Scholar 

  21. Römer T, Rabe T, Albring C et al (2014) Management von Endometriumhyperplasien. Gemeinsame Stellungnahme der DGGEF und des BVF e. V. J Reproduktionsmed Endocrinol 11:170–185

    Google Scholar 

  22. Römer T, Bühling KJ et al (2017) Paradigmenwechsel in der Verhütung – Verhaltensunabhängige sichere Langzeitkontrazeption mit Levonorgestrel-Intrauterin-Systemen. Drug Report 11:1–32

    Google Scholar 

  23. Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T et al (2010) The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(115):e1–e7

    Google Scholar 

  24. Shaamash AH, Sayed GH, Hussien MM et al (2005) A comparative study of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system Mirena versus the Copper T380A intrauterine device during lactation: breast-feeding performance infant growth and infant development. Contraception 72:346–351

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Soini T, Hurskainen R, Renman S et al (2014) Cancer risk in women using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in Finland. Obstet Gynecol 124:292–299

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Toivonen J et al (1991) Protective effect of intrauterine release of levonorgestrel on pelvic infection: three years comparative experience of levonorgestrel-and copper-realising intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 77:261–264

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Unal C, Eser A, Tozkir E et al (2018) Comparison of expulsions following intracesarean placement of an innovative frameless copper-releasing IUD (Gyn-CS®) versus the TCu380A: a randomized trial. Contraception 17:S0010-7824(18)30135-5

    Google Scholar 

  28. WHO-Empfehlung (2015) Medical elegibility criteria for contraceptive use, 5. Aufl. WHO, Genf. ISBN 978-9241429158

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wiebe E, Trussell J (2016) Discontinuation rates and acceptability during 1 year of using the intrauterine ball (the SCu380A). Contraception 93:364–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wildemeersch D, Jandi S, Pett A et al (2014) Use of frameless intrauterine devices and systems in young nulliparous and adolescent woman: results of multicenter study. Int J Womens Health 6:727–734

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wildemeersch D, Andrade A, Goldstuck ND et al (2017) Intrauterine levonorgestrel delivery with frameless fibrous delivery system: review of clinical experience. Int J Womens Health 9:49–58

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Worley BL, Gur T, Schaffir J (2018) The relationship between progestin hormonal contraception and depression: a systematic review. Contraception 97(6):478–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2018.01.010

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Römer.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

T. Römer hat Honorare für Vorträge und Advisory Boards von Bayer, Gedeon Richter, MSD und Exceltis erhalten.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Redaktion

T. Strowitzki, Heidelberg

B. Sonntag, Hamburg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Römer, T. Weiterentwicklung intrauteriner Kontrazeptionssysteme. Gynäkologe 52, 126–134 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-018-4359-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-018-4359-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation