Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 279, Issue 3, pp 395–397 | Cite as

Colon penetration by a copper intrauterine device: a case report with literature review

  • Anil Arslan
  • Mine Kanat-PektasEmail author
  • Huseyin Yesilyurt
  • Umit Bilge
Case Report



The present case report describes colon injury subsequent to uterine penetration which is associated with the use of an intrauterine device (IUD).


A 29-year-old multiparous woman, who presented with vague abdominal pain, had a TCu 380A inserted at her postpartum third month visit. The T-shaped segment of the IUD was found to be lodged within the lumen of a colon segment which was 60 cm far from the ileocecal valve. The vertical copper-bearing limb of the IUD extruded from the colon wall beyond the mesenteric edge and partially penetrated the fundal wall. After the affected colon segment was resected, an end-to-end anastomosis was made. Recovery period was uneventful.


The incidence of uterine penetration is affected by the IUD type, the timing of insertion related to pregnancy termination, the position of uterus, insertion technique, the experience of the operator and the follow-up period. The location of missing IUDs can be determined by ultrasonography, X-ray or computed tomography imaging.


Colon penetration Contraception Intrauterine device Intrauterine penetration 


  1. 1.
    Velazquez Velasco JR, Vilchis Nava P, Nevarez Bernal RA, Kably Ambe A (2006) Uterine and jejunum perforation due to intrauterine device. A report of a case and literature review. Ginecol Obstet Mex 74(8):435–438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Medina TM, Hill DA, DeJesus S, Hoover F (2005) IUD removal with colonoscopy: a case report. J Reprod Med 50(7):547–549PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bowen-Simpkins P (2004) Missing IUD fragment. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 30(4):276. doi: 10.1783/0000000042176992 (Author reply 277)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gungor M, Sonmezer M, Atabekoglu C, Ortac F (2003) Laparoscopic management of a translocated intrauterine device perforating the bowel. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10(4):539–541. doi: 10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60163-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Disu S, Boret A (2004) Asymptomatic ileal perforation of an intrauterine device. Arch Gynecol Obstet 269(3):230–231. doi: 10.1007/s00404-003-0566-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stuckey A, Dutreil P, Aspuru E, Nolan TE (2005) Symptomatic cecal perforation by an intrauterine device with appendectomy removal. Obstet Gynecol 105(5 Pt 2):1239–1241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen CP, Hsu TC (1998) Ileal penetration by a Multiload-Cu 375 intrauterine contraceptive device. A case report with review of the literature. Contraception 58(5):295–304. doi: 10.1016/S0010-7824(98)00116-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anil Arslan
    • 1
  • Mine Kanat-Pektas
    • 2
    Email author
  • Huseyin Yesilyurt
    • 1
  • Umit Bilge
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GynecologyDr. Zekai Tahir Burak Women Health Research and Education HospitalAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations