Advertisement

Contraception pp 158-168 | Cite as

Diaphragm, Condoms, and Sponge

  • Gerald S. Bernstein
Part of the Clinical Perspectives in Obstetrics and Gynecology book series (CPOG)

Abstract

Barrier contraceptives are the oldest form of conception control that have survived into the modern era. For many years barriers were the only contraceptive products available but they fell into general disfavor when oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices (IUDs) became available, because these methods were perceived as being more modern, more convenient, and more efficacious in preventing pregnancy.

Keywords

Pregnancy Rate Obstet Gynecol Chlamydia Trachomatis Anterior Vaginal Wall Toxic Shock Syndrome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hirnes NE. Medical History of Contraception. New York, Shoeken Books, 1970; 186–206.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Free MJ. Condoms: the rubber remedy. In Corson SL, Derman RJ, Tyrer LB (eds): Fertility Control. Little Brown and Boston, Company, 1985; 257–268.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Valdiserri RO. Cum hastis sic clypeatis: the turbulent history of the condom. Bull NY Acad Med 1988; 64: 237.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dumm JJ, Piotrow PT, Dalsimer IA. The modern condom. A quality product for effective contraception. Population Reports. Series H: 2:H-21–36,1974.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Potts M, Diggory P. Textbook of Contraceptive Practice. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983; 106–118.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trussell J, Hatcher R, Cates W, et al. Contraceptive Failure in the United States: an update. Stud Fam Plan 1990; 21: 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Free MJ. An assessment of burst strength: distribution data for monitoring quality of condom stocks in developing countries. Contraception 1986; 33: 285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker RF, Sherwin RP, Voeller B, Bernstein GS, et al. Precautions when lightning strikes during the monsoon: the effect of ozone on condoms. JAMA 1988; 260: 1404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark LJ, Sherwin RP, Baker RF. Latex condom deterioration accelerated by environmental factors: 1- ozone. Contraception 1989; 39: 245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Voeller B, Coulson AH, Bernstein GS, Nakamura RM Mineral oil lubricants cause rapid deterioration of latex condoms. Contraception 1989; 39: 95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    White N, Taylor K, Lyszkowski A, et al. Dangers of lubricants used with condoms. Nature 1988; 335: 19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bernstein GS, Coulson AH, Nakamura RM, et al. Detection of a defective lot of condoms medicated with nonoxynol-9. Presented at IV International Conference on AIDS. Stockholm, June 12–16, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anon. Can you rely on condoms? Consumer Reports, March 1989; 135–141.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slater JE. Rubber anaphylaxis. NEJM 1989; 320: 1126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johlin L. Asthma and rhinitis associated with lycopodium spores on condoms. Lancet 1989; 1: 563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Conant M, Hardy D, Servatinger J. Condoms prevent transmission of AIDS-associated retrovirus. JAMA 1986; 255–1706.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van de Perre P, Jacobs D, Sprecher- Goldberger S. The latex condom, an effective barrier against sexual transmission of AIDS-related viruses. AIDS 1987; 1: 49.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Conant MA, Spicer DW, Smith CD. Herpes simplex virus transmission: condom studies. Sex Trans Dis 1984; 11: 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kalznelson S, Drew WL, Mintz L. Efficacy of the condom as a barrier to the transmission of cytomegalovirus. J Infect Dis 1984; 150: 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Minuk GY, Böhme CE, Bowen TJ, et al. Efficacy of commercial condoms in the prevention of hepatitis B virus infection. Gastroenterology 1987; 93: 710.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Judson FN, Bodin GF, Levin MJ, et al. In vitro tests demonstrate condoms provide an effective barrier against Chlamydia trachomatis and Herpes simples virus. Presented at 5th meeting of the International Society for STD research, Seattle, Washington, August 1–3, 1983.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith L, Jr, Oleske J, Cooper R, et al. Efficacy of condoms as barriers to HSV-2 and gonorrhea: an in vitro model. Presented at First Sexually Transmitted Disease World Congress, San Juan, Puerto Rico. November 15–21, 1981.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Voeller B, Hicks D, Coulson AH, Bernstein GS, Nakamura RM, et al. Testing HIV leakage through condoms. Presented at IV International Conference on AIDS, Stockholm, June 12–16, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blair M, Drew WL. Condom model for evaluating HIV transmission. Presented at IV International Conference on AIDS, Stockholm, June 12–16, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stone KM, Grimes DA, Magder LS. Personal protection against sexually transmitted diseases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cates W Jr, Stone KM. Family planning, sexually transmitted diseases and contraceptive choice: a literature update — Part 1. Fam Plan Perspect 1992; 24: 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bernstein GS. Conventional methods of contraception: condom, diaphragm and vaginal foam. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1974; 17: 21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bernstein GS, Nakamura RM. Clinical trials of vaginal contraceptives. In Zatuchni GI, Sobrero AJ, Speidel JJ, Sciarra JJ (eds): Vaginal Contraception. New Developments. Hagerstown MD, Harper & Row, 1979; Chapter 26, 264–270.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Widhalm MV. Vaginal lesion: etiology a mal-fitting diaphragm? J Nurse-Midwifery 1979; 24: 39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bernstein GS, Clark V, Coulson AH, et al. Comparative study of the cervical cap and diaphragm: differences in occurrence of genital trauma and changes in cervical cytology, presented at 116th Annual Meeting. Am Pub Health Assoc, Boston, 1988.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bernstein GS. Use-effectiveness study of cer-vical caps. Final report to NICHD, 1986; 133- 139.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stone KM, Grimes DA, Madger LS. Personal projection against sexually transmitted disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cates W Jr, Stone KM. Family planning, sexually transmitted diseases and contraceptive choice: a literature update-Part I. Fam Plan Perspect 1992; 24: 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McGroarty JA, Soboh F, et al. The spermicidal compound nonoxynol-9 increases adhesion of candida species to human epithelial cells. In vitro. Infect Immun 1990; 58: 2005.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fihn SD, Latham RH, Roberts P. Association between diaphragm use and urinary tract infection. JAMA 1985; 254: 240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fihn SD, Johnson C, Pinkstaff C, et al. Diaphragm use and urinary tract infections: anal-ysis of urodynamic and microbiological factors. J Urol 1986; 136: 853.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McGroarty JA, Faguy D, et al. The spermicidal compound nonoxynol-9: effect on E. coli structure and adhesion. Presented at 90th annual meeting of Am Soc Microbiol, Anaheim, CA, 1990.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hooten TH, Hillier S, Johnson C, et al. Escherichiä coli bacteriuria and contraceptive method. JAMA 1991; 265: 64.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Loomis L, Feder HM Jr. Toxic shock syndrome associated with diaphragm use. N Engl J Med 1981; 305: 1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baehler EA, Dillon WP, et al. Prolonged use of a diaphragm and toxic shock syndrome. Fertil Steril 1982; 38: 248.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Baehler EA, Dillon WP, et al. The effects of prolonged retention of diaphragms on colonization by Staphylococcus Aureus of the lower genital tract. Fertil Steril 1983; 39: 162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Keown KK. Historical perspectives on intra-vaginal contraceptive sponges. Contraception 1977; 16: 1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hines NE. Loc Cit, pp 72–75.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    TodayR Sponge. Whitehall Laboratories, New York.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chvapil M, Droegemueller M, Heine MW, et al. Collagen sponge as vaginal contraceptive barrier: critical summary of seven years of research. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 151: 326.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bernstein GS, Nakamura RM. Development and testing of vaginal contraceptives: studies of the polyurethane vaginal contraceptive sponge. Final Report to NICHD, Contract NO-l-HD-8-2857,1982.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Anon. Package Insert. TodayR Sponge.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Edelman DA, Mclntyre SL, Harper J. A comparative trial of the Today contraceptive sponge and diaphragm. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 150: 869.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mclntyre SL, Higgins JE. Parity and use effectiveness with the contraceptive sponge. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 796.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Borko E, Mclntyre SL, Feldblum PJ. A com-parative clinical trial of the contraceptive sponge and neo sampoon. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65: 511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Edelman DA, North B, Bernstein GS. Parity, pregnancy, and the sponge. Fam Plan Perspect 1985; 17: 284.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Edelman DA, North BB. Updated pregnancy rates for the Today contraceptive sponge. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 1164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bernstein GS, et al. Use effectiveness study of cervical caps. Final Report to NICHD. Con-tract No. N01-HG-1-2804, 1986.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Trussell J. Personal communication, 1992.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Walsh T, Bernstein GS, Clark V, et al. Why do barrier methods of birth control appear to be less effective for women who have had children? Analysis of the relative importance of behavioral and physiological risk factors. Presented at 119th Annual Meeting of The American Public Health Association, Atlanta, November 1991.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rosenberg M J, Eojanapithayakon W, Feldblum PJ, et al. Effect of the contraceptive sponge on chlamydial infection, gonorrhea, and candidiasis. JAMA 1987; 257: 2308.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Faich G, Pearson K, Fleming D, et al. Toxic shock syndrome and the vaginal contraceptive sponge. JAMA 1986; 255: 216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wolf PH, Perlman J, Fortney J, et al. Toxic shock syndrome. JAMA 1987; 258: 908.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    PharmatexR. Groupe Innothera Industry, L’hay les Roses, France.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cohen J. Experimentation d’un tampon synthetique a’ usage unique impregne’ de chlorure de benzalkonium. Contraception- Fertilite-Sexualite’ 1983; 11: 131.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bernstein GS, et al. Evaluation of a polyvinyl vaginal contraceptive sponge containing benzalkonium chloride. Final Report to NICHD. Contract No. Nol-HG-5-2936, 1989; 103–117.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Coulson AH, Clark V, Walsh T, et al. Use of matched historical controls in evaluating contraceptive efficacy: a viable alternative to randomization? Presented at 116th Annual Meeting of The American Public Health Association, Boston, 1988.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    ProtectaidR vaginal contraceptive sponge. AXCAN Scientific Corp. Pittsburgh, NY 12901.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald S. Bernstein

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations