Skip to main content

IUD in first-trimester abortion: immediate intrauterine contraceptive devices insertion vs delayed insertion following the next menstruation bleeding

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics volume 290, pages 99–105 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Approximately 21 days after an abortion, ovulation occurs in 50 % of women. Installation of an IUD directly after induced or spontaneous abortion offers immediate contraceptive protection. The purpose of the present study was to weigh up contraceptive safety and adverse reactions of IUD inserted directly after first-trimester abortion under general or paracervical anesthesia as against the fitting of IUD in the days of the next menstrual cycle without anesthesia.

Method

During the period May 1987 to October 2010, 73 women (Group A) underwent an immediate post-abortion insertion IUD after a first-trimester spontaneous or induced abortion under general or local paracervical anesthesia and 69 participants (Group B) received IUD during the next menstrual cycle without anesthesia. Questionnaires were completed by all the women of the study with respect to the effects of IUD. The women were examined every 3 months for 1 year after the fitting of the IUD in the out-patient department of the University Obstetrics Gynecological Department of Alexandroupolis, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece.

Results

The demographic characteristics of the women of the two groups were similar. The age of the women ranged between 19 and 44 years, while 61.98 % were women with one or two children and 38.02 % were women with three or more children. During the first menstrual cycles, with the exception of vaginal hemorrhages (5 %) and adnexitis (1 %), no serious adverse reactions were noted. During the transvaginal ultrasonography checks in both groups, no observation was made of any dislocation of the IUD, except for two cases in the subgroup of those women with paracervical anesthesia and one case in the women of Group B. As concerns the questionnaire with regard to the women’s subjective evaluation of IUD, satisfactory answers were given.

Conclusions

There were no differences between the two groups either with respect to the security of the supplied contraceptive methods or to the development of side effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Sieving RE, Bearinger LH, Resnick MD, Pettingell S, Skay C (2007) Adolescent dual method use: relevant attitudes, normative beliefs and self-efficacy. J Adolesc Health 40(3):275.e15–275.e22 Epub 24 Jan 2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK (2002) Contraceptive use among US women having abortions in 2000–2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 34(6):294–303

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Grimes DA, Gallo MF, Grigorieva V, Nanda K, Schulz KF (2004) Fertility awareness-based methods for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004860

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grimes D, Schulz K, Stanwood N (2004) Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD001777. (Review) Update in: (2010) Cochrane Database Syst Rev (6):CD001777

  5. Hubacher D, Cheng D (2004) Intrauterine devices and reproductive health: American women in feast and famine. Contraception 69(6):437–446 Review

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. World Health Organization scientific group Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of Intrauterine Devices WHO Technical Report Series 753 WHO Geneva 1987

  7. Moussa A (2001) Evaluation of postabortion IUD insertion in Egyptian women. Contraception 63(6):315–317

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodman S, Hendlish SK, Benedict C, Reeves MF, Pera-Floyd M, Foster-Rosales A (2008) Increasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to post-abortal and interval insertion. Contraception 78(2):136–142. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.03.008

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heikinheimo O, Gissler M, Suhonen S (2008) Age, parity, history of abortion and contraceptive choices affect the risk of repeat abortion. Contraception 78(2):149–154. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.03.013

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hagenfeldt K (1972) Intrauterine contraception with the copper-T device. 2. Influence on endometrial acid and alkaline phosphatase, beta-glucuronidase and lactic dehydrogenase activities. Contraception 6(3):191–206

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sivin I, Stern J (1979) Long-acting, more effective copper T IUDs: a summary of US experience, 1970–75. Stud Fam Plann 10(10):263–281

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Luukkainen T, Allonen H, Nielsen NC, Nygren KG, Pyörälä T (1983) Five years’ experience of intrauterine contraception with the Nova-T and the Copper-T-200. Am J Obstet Gynecol 147(8):885–892

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Os WA, Thiery M, Van Der Pas H, Rhemrev PE, De Nooyer CC, Kleinhout J (1981) Comparison of four different models of the Multiload copper IUD. Contracept Deliv Syst 2(4):275–280

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Filshie M, Guillebaud J (1989) Contraception: science and practice, chapter 9, pp 144–171

  15. Moyer DL, Mishell DR Jr (1971) Reactions of human endometrium to the intrauterine foreign body II. Long term effects on the endometrial histology and cytology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 111(1):66–80

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sedlis A, Reyniak JV (1970) Endometrial leukocytes in patients using intrauterine contraceptive devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol 108(8):1209–1212

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kavanaugh ML, Jones RK, Finer LB (2010) How commonly do US abortion clinics offer contraceptive services? Contraception 82(4):331–336. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2010.04.010

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, Petrosky E, Madden T, Eisenberg D, Secura G (2011) Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol 117(5):1105–1113. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821188ad

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kulier R, O’Brien PA, Helmerhorst FM, Usher-Patel M, D’Arcangues C (2007) Copper containing, framed intra-uterine devices for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD005347 Review

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Suhonen S, Haukkamaa M, Jakobsson T, Rauramo I (2004) Clinical performance of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and oral contraceptives in young nulliparous women: a comparative study. Contraception 69(5):407–412

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tatum HJ, Connell EB (1989) Contraception science and practice, chapter 9, Itrauterine contraceptive devices pp 144–171

  22. Rivera R, Chi IC, Farr G (1993) The intrauterine device in the present and future. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 5(6):829–832 Review

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Farley TM, Rosenberg MJ, Rowe PJ, Chen JH, Meirik O (1992) Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective. Lancet 339(8796):785–788

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Society for Family Planning (2010) Clinical guidelines use of the Mirena LNG-IUS and Paragard CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception 81:367–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dijkhuizen K, Dekkers OM, Holleboom CA, de Groot CJ, Hellebrekers BW, van Roosmalen GJ, Janssen CA, Helmerhorst FM (2011) Vaginal misoprostol prior to insertion of an intrauterine device: an RCT. Hum Reprod 26(2):323–329. doi:10.1093/humrep/deq348

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tang J, Maurer R, Bartz D (2013) Intrauterine device knowledge and practices: a national survey of obstetrics and gynecology residents. South Med J 106(9):500–505. doi:10.1097/SMJ.0b013e3182a5ef0a

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stanwood NL, Garrett JM, Konrad TR (2002) Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet Gynecol 99(2):275–280

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Harper CC, Blum M, de Bocanegra HT, Darney PD, Speidel JJ, Policar M, Drey EA (2008) Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol 111(6):1359–1369. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318173fd83

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tyler CP, Whiteman MK, Zapata LB, Curtis KM, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA (2012) Health care provider attitudes and practices related to intrauterine devices for nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 119(4):762–771. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31824aca39

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice; Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group (2009) ACOG Committee Opinion no. 450: Increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 114(6):1434–1438. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c6f965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2010) ACOG practice bulletin no. 110: noncontraceptive uses of hormonal contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol 115(1):206–218. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181cb50b5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2011) ACOG practice bulletin no. 121: long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 118(1):184–196. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318227f05e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fox MC, Oat-Judge J, Severson K, Jamshidi RM, Singh RH, McDonald-Mosley R, Burke AE (2011) Immediate placement of intrauterine devices after first and second trimester pregnancy termination. Contraception 83(1):34–40. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2010.06.018 Epub 11 Aug 2010

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Drey EA, Reeves MF, Ogawa DD, Sokoloff A, Darney PD, Steinauer JE (2009) Insertion of intrauterine contraceptives immediately following first- and second-trimester abortions. Contraception 79(5):397–402. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.11.019

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cremer M, Bullard KA, Mosley RM, Weiselberg C, Molaei M, Lerner V, Alonzo TA (2011) Immediate vs. delayed post-abortal copper T 380A IUD insertion in cases over 12 weeks of gestation. Contraception 83(6):522–527. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2010.10.005

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hohmann HL, Reeves MF, Chen BA, Perriera LK, Hayes JL, Creinin MD (2012) Immediate versus delayed insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device following dilation and evacuation: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception 85(3):240–245. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2011.08.002

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Reeves MF, Smith KJ, Creinin MD (2007) Contraceptive effectiveness of immediate compared with delayed insertion of intrauterine devices after abortion: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 109(6):1286–1294. Erratum in: Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Oct; 110(4):936

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bednarek PH, Creinin MD, Reeves MF, Cwiak C, Espey E, Jensen JT, Post-Aspiration IUD (2011) Randomization (PAIR) Study Trial Group. Immediate versus delayed IUD insertion after uterine aspiration. N Engl J Med 364(23):2208–2217. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1011600

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McNicholas C, Hotchkiss T, Madden T, Zhao Q, Allsworth J, Peipert JF (2012) Immediate postabortion intrauterine device insertion: continuation and satisfaction. Womens Health Issues 22(4):e365–e369. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2012.04.008

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Steenland MW, Tepper NK, Curtis KM, Kapp N (2011) Intrauterine contraceptive insertion postabortion: a systematic review. Contraception 84(5):447–464. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2011.03.007 Epub 4 May 2011. Review

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Darroch JE (2013) Trends in contraceptive use. Contraception 87(3):259–263. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2012.08.029 Epub 4 Oct 2012

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Democritus University of Thrace, Thrace, Greece

    Panagiotis Tsikouras, Nikolaos Tsagias, Petros Pinidis, Anastasios Liberis, Alexandros Ammari, Xenofon Grapsas, Georgios Galazios & Vasileios Liberis

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aretaieio Hospital, University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece

    Nikolaos Vrachnis

  3. Department of Laboratory, Democritus University of Thrace, Thrace, Greece

    Anastasia Grapsa

Authors
  1. Panagiotis Tsikouras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikolaos Vrachnis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anastasia Grapsa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nikolaos Tsagias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Petros Pinidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anastasios Liberis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alexandros Ammari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xenofon Grapsas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Georgios Galazios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Vasileios Liberis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Panagiotis Tsikouras.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tsikouras, P., Vrachnis, N., Grapsa, A. et al. IUD in first-trimester abortion: immediate intrauterine contraceptive devices insertion vs delayed insertion following the next menstruation bleeding. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290, 99–105 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3181-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3181-0

Keywords

  • IUD
  • Coil
  • IUCD
  • Post-abortion insertion
  • Delayed insertion of IUD
  • Abortion