Skip to main content

Body composition and bone mineral density in users of the etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant



There is scarce information about bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition (BC) among users of the etonogestrel (ENG)-releasing implant.


To evaluate BC and BMD in ENG-releasing implant users as compared to copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD)-users.


A prospective study was conducted on 75 users of both contraceptive methods. BMD was evaluated at femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) (L1–L4) and BC at baseline and at 12 months after insertion.


The mean (±SD) age was 30.4 ± 6.8 and 29.8 ± 8.4 years and body mass index (kg/m2) was 24.9 ± 4.1 and 24.6 ± 3.5 in ENG-releasing implant- and Cu-IUD-users, respectively. ENG-releasing implant users did not show significant differences on BMD at the LS and FN at 12 months of use. Furthermore, ENG-implant users had an increase in body weight at 12 months (p < 0.001) and an increase of 2 % in the percentage of body fat, when compared with Cu-IUD users. There was a significant increase in lean mass in ENG-implant users at 12 months (p = 0.020).


No significant changes of BMD were seen after the first year of use among the ENG-releasing implant-users, albeit an increase of weight and fat mass was seen when compared to Cu-IUD users.

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


  1. Peterson HB, Curtis KM (2005) Long-acting methods of contraception. N Engl J Med 353(20):2169–2175

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grimes DA (2009) Forgettable contraception. Contraception 80(6):497–499. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2009.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q et al (2012) Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med 366(21):1998–2007. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1110855

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bahamondes L, Bottura BF, Bahamondes MV et al (2014) Estimated disability-adjusted life years averted by long-term provision of long acting contraceptive methods in a Brazilian clinic. Hum Reprod 29(10):2163–2170. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cundy T, Cornish J, Roberts H, Elder H, Reid IR (1998) Spinal bone density in women using depot medroxyprogesterone contraception. Obstet Gynecol 92(4 pt 1):569–573

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Scholes D, La Croix AZ, Ichikawa LE, Barlow WE, Ott SM (2004) The association between depot medroxyprogesterone acetate contraception and bone mineral density in adolescent women. Contraception 69(2):99–104

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organization (2005) WHO statement on hormonal contraception and bone health. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 80(35):302–304

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pongsatha S, Ekmahachai M, Suntornlimsiri N, Morakote N, Chaovisitsaree S (2010) Bone mineral density in women using the subdermal contraceptive implant Implanon for at least 2 years. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 109(3):223–225. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.01.018

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Freeman S, Shulman LP (2010) Considerations for the use of progestin-only contraceptives. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 22(2):81–91. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.2009.00473.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bahamondes L, Monteiro-Dantas C, Espejo-Arce X, Dos Santos Fernandes AM, Lui-Filho JF, Perrotti M, Petta CA (2006) A prospective study of the forearm bone density of users of etonogestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants. Hum Reprod 21(2):466–470

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. De Laet C, Kanis JA, Oden A, Johanson H, Johnell O, Delmas P, Eisman JA, Kroger H, Fujiwara S, Garnero P, McCloskey EV, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ 3rd, Meunier PJ, Pols HA, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A (2005) Body mass index as a predictor of fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 16(11):1330–1338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Beerthuizen R, van Beek A, Massai R, Mäkäräinen L, Hout J, Bennink HC (2000) Bone mineral density during long-term use of the progestagen contraceptive implant Implanon compared to a non-hormonal method of contraception. Hum Reprod 15(1):118–122

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith A, Reuter S (2002) An assessment of the use of Implanon in three community services. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 28(4):193–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Agrawal A, Robinson C (2005) An assessment of the first 3 years’ use of Implanon in Luton. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 31(4):310–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lakha F, Glasier AF (2006) Continuation rates of Implanon in the UK: data from an observational study in a clinical setting. Contraception 74(4):287–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wong RC, Bell RJ, Thunuguntla K, McNamee K, Vollenhoven B (2009) Implanon users are less likely to be satisfied with their contraception after 6 months than IUD users. Contraception 80(5):452–456. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2009.03.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Modesto W, Bahamondes MV, Bahamondes L (2014) A randomized clinical trial of the effect of intensive versus non-intensive counselling on discontinuation rates due to bleeding disturbances of three long-acting reversible contraceptives. Hum Reprod 29(7):1393–1399

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hohmann H, Creinin MD (2007) The contraceptive implant. Clin Obstet Gynecol 50(4):907–917

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vickery Z, Madden T, Zhao Q, Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Peipert JF (2013) Weight change at 12 months in users of three progestin-only contraceptive methods. Contraception 88(4):503–508. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2013.03.004

    PubMed Central  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mansour D, Bahamondes L, Critchley H, Darney P, Fraser IS (2011) The management of unacceptable bleeding patterns in etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant users. Contraception 83(3):202–210. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2010.08.001

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nault AM, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Madden T, Secura GM (2013) Validity of perceived weight gain in women using long-acting reversible contraception and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208(1):48.e1–48.e8

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


W.M. received grants from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Grants# 2011/01554-4 and this study received financial support from the FAPESP Grants# 2012/12432-0.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Waleska Modesto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Modesto, W., Dal´Ava, N., Monteiro, I. et al. Body composition and bone mineral density in users of the etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292, 1387–1391 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Etonogestrel-releasing implant
  • Bone mineral density
  • Body composition