Advertisement

Contraception

  • Barbara S. Apgar

Abstract

The intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) has not increased in popularity despite testimony to its effectiveness and safety. Even though litigation against the currently marketed IUDs is minimal,1,2 the most common reason clinicians are reluctant to insert them is fear of malpractice. All U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved IUDs have been removed from the market except the progesterone IUD (Progestasert) and Copper T (ParaGard T). The decision to discontinue marketing most IUDs was based on an economic decision rather than a medical one. The severity of IUD litigation results from the public perspective that the IUD is not safe. Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) sequelae alleged to have resulted in permanent infertility accounts for 89% of the cases tried against Planned Parenthood. It is emphasized by Planned Parenthood legal counsel that the ability of a defense attorney to successfully resolve an IUD case is based on the clinician’s full compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended protocol and the use of a complete informed consent.2

Keywords

Ectopic Pregnancy Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Sexually Transmitted Disease Intrauterine Device Menstrual Blood Loss 
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.
    Chez RA, Grimes DA, Tatum H. IUDs: underused and misunderstood; a symposium. Contemp Obstet Gynecol 1991;10:73–92.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    York S. IUD litigation: the Planned Parenthood experience. Am J Gynecol Health 1989;3(3–5):35–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alvarez F, Brache V, Fernandez E, et al. New insights on the mode of action of intrauterine contraceptive devices in women. Fertil Steril 1988;49:768–773.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larsson B, Ljung B, Hamberger L. The influence of copper on the in vitro motility of the human fallopian tube. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976;125:682–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Segal SJ, Sanchez FA, Adejuivon LA, Mejia VB, Leon P, Faundes A. Absence of chorionic gonadotropin in sera of women who use intrauterine devices. Fertil Steril 1985;44:214–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moyer DL, Mi shell DR. Reactions of human endometrium to the intrauterine foreign body. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1971;111:66–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tatum H J. A new IUD offering more copper, better results. Con-temp Obstet Gynecol 1988; Suppl:36–47.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergqvist A, Rybo G. Treatment of menorrhagia with intrauterine release of progesterone. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983;90:255–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cole LP, Edelman DA, Potts DM, Wheeler RG, Laufe LE. Postpartum insertion of modified intrauterine devices. J Reprod Med 1984;29:677–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwarz RH, Mead PB. A new look at IUD-associated disease. Contemp Obstet Gynecol 1991;10:65–9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sivin I. Dose and age-dependent ectopic pregnancy risks with intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:291–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilson JC. A prospective New Zealand study of fertility after removal of copper intrauterine contraceptive devices for conception and because of complications: a four year study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:391–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cramer DW, Goldman MB, Schiff I, et al. The relationship of tubal infertility to barrier method and oral contraceptive use. JAMA 1987;257:2446–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kessel E. Pelvic inflammatory disease with intrauterine device use: a reassessment. Fertil Steril 1989;51:1–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee NC, Rubin GL, Ory HW, Burkman RT. Type of intrauterine device and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol 1983;62:1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burkman RT. Association between intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol 1981;57:269–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Darling JR, Weiss NS, Metch BJ, et al. Primary tubal infertility in relation to the use of the intrauterine device. N Engl J Med 1985;312:937–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sinei SKA, Schulz KF, Lamptey PR, et al. Preventing IUCD-related pelvic infection: the efficacy of prophylactic doxycycline at insertion. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:412–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Valicenti JF, Pappas AA, Graber CD, Williamson HO, Willis NF. Detection and prevalence of IUD-associated Actinomyces colonization and related morbidity: a prospective study of 69,925 cervical smears. JAMA 1982;247:1149–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guillebaud J, Bonnar J. Menstrual blood-loss with intrauterine devices. Lancet 1976;1:387–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anderson AB, Guillebaud J, Haynes PJ, Turnbill AC. Reduction of menstrual blood loss by prostaglandin-synthetase inhibitors. Lancet 1976;1:774–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tatum HJ, Schmidt FH, Jain AK. Management and outcome of pregnancies associated with the copper T intrauterine device. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976;126:869–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vessey MP, Doll R, Johnson B, Peto R. Outcome of pregnancy in women using an intrauterine device. Lancet 1974;1:495–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alvior GT. Pregnancy outcome with removal of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 1973;41:894–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gupta BK, Gupta AN, Lyall S. Return of fertility in various types of IUD users. Int J Fertil 1989;32:123–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Connell EB. Barrier contraceptives—their time has returned. Female Patient 1989;14:66–75.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hatcher RA, Stewart F, Trussel J, et al. The diaphragm, contraceptive sponge and cervical cap. In: Contraceptive Technology 1990–1992. 15th ed. New York: Irvington, 1992:193–225.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mills A. Barrier contraception. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1984;11: 641–60.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Craig S, Hepburn S. The effectiveness of barrier methods with and without spermicide. Contraception 1982;26:347–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kovacs GT, Jarman H, Dunn K, Westcott M, Baker HWG. The contraceptive diaphragm: is it an acceptable method in the 1980’s? Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;26:76–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Foxman B, Frerichs RR. Epidemiology of urinary tract infection: 1. Diaphragm use and sexual intercourse Am J Public Health 1985;75:1308–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hooton TM, Hillier S, Johnson C, Roberts PL, Stamm WE. Escherichia coli bacteriuria and contraceptive method. JAMA 1991;265:64–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fihn SD, Latham RH, Roberts P, Running K, Stamm W. Association between diaphragm use and urinary tract infection. JAMA 1985;254:240–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baehler EA, Dillon WP, Cumbo TJ, Lee RV. Prolonged use of a diaphragm and toxic shock syndrome. Fertil Steril 1982;38:248–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wright NH, Vessey MP, Kenward K, McPherson K, Doll R. Neoplasia and dysplasia of the cervix uteri and contraception: a possible protective effect of the diaphragm. Br J Cancer 1978; 38:273–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tatum HJ, Connell-Tatum EB. Barrier contraception: a comprehensive review. Fertil Steril 1981;36:1–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Powell MG, Mears BJ, Deber RB. Contraception with the cervical cap: effectiveness, safety, continuity of use and user satisfaction. Contraception 1986;33:215–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lauersen NH, Wilson KH, Graves ZR, Calhoun F, Leeds LE, Antonopoulos Y. The cervical cap: effectiveness, safety and acceptability as a barrier contraceptive. Mt Sinai J Med 1986;53: 233–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eliot J, Anderson L, Bernstein S. Progress report of a study of the cervical cap. J Reprod Med 1985;30:753–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mishell D. Contraception. N Engl J Med 1989;320:777–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Edelman DA, McIntyre SL, Harper J. A comparative trial of the today contraceptive sponge and diaphragm. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;150:869–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mclntyre SL, Higgins JE. Parity and use effectiveness with the contraceptive sponge. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:796–801.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Faich G, Pearson K, Fleming D, Sobel S, Anello C. Toxic shock syndrome and the vaginal contraceptive sponge. JAMA 1986;255:216–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rosenberg MJ, Rojanapithayakorn W, Feldblum PJ, Higgins JE. Effect of the contraceptive sponge on chlamydial infections, gonorrhea and candidiasis: a comparative clinical trial. JAMA 1987; 257:2308–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moran JS, Janes HR, Peterman TA, Stone KM. Increase in condom sales following AIDS education and publicity, United States. Am J Public Health 1990;80:607–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schechter MT, Craib KJ, Willoughby B, et al. Patterns of sexual behavior and condom use in a cohort of homosexual men. Am J Public Health 1988;78:1535–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gerofi J, Shelley G, Donovan B. a study of the relationship between tensile testing of condoms and breakage in use. Contraception 1991;43:177–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Albert AE, Hatcher RA, Graves W Condom use and breakage among women in a municipal hospital family planning clinic. Contraception 1991;43:167–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rietmeijer CA, Krebs JW, Florino PM, Judson FN. Condoms as physical and chemical barriers against human immunodeficiency virus. JAMA 1988;259:1851–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Louv WC, Austin H, Alexander WJ, Stagno S, Cheeks J. A clinical trial of nonoxynol-9 for preventing gonococcal and chlamydial infections. J Infect Dis 1988;158:518–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Barlow D. The condom and gonorrhea. Lancet 1977;2:811–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fischl MA, Dickinson GM, Scott GB, Klimas N, Fletcher MA, Parks W Evaluation of heterosexual partners, children and household contacts of adults with AIDS. JAMA 1987;257:640–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jick H, Hanna MT, Stergachis A, Heidrich F, Perera DR, Roth-man KJ. Vaginal spermicides and congenital disorders. JAMA 1981;245:1329–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Louik C, Mitchell AA, Werler MM. Maternal exposure to spermicides in relation to certain birth defects. N Engl J Med 1987;317: 474–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schwarz BE, Cunningham FG. Contraception update. In: Williams obstetrics. 17th ed. Appleton & Lange Mar/Apr 1987. No.ll.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hamilton CJCM, Hoogland HJ. Longitudinal ultrasonographic study of the ovarian suppressive activity of a low dose triphasic oral contraceptive during correct and incorrect pill intake. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:1159–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hillard PJA. The patient’s reaction to side effects of oral contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;16:1412–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Trussel J, Kost K. Contraceptive failure in the United States: a critical review of the literature. Stud Fam Plan 1987;18:237–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vessey M, Lawless M, Yeates D. Efficacy of different contraceptive methods. Lancet 1982;1:841–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hatcher RA, Stewart F, Trussel J, et al. The pill: combined oral contraceptives. In: Contraceptive technology 1990–1992. New York: Irvington, 1992:227–99.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Furstenberg FF, Shea J, Allison P, Herceg-Baron R, Webb D. Contraceptive continuation among adolescents attending family planning clinics. Fam Plann Perspect 1983;15:211–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Finlay IG, Scott MGB. Patterns of contraceptive pill taking in an inner city practice. BMJ 1986;293:601–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Miller WB. Why some women fail to use their contraceptive method: a psychological investigation. Fam Plann Perspect 1986;18:27–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Droegemueller W, Katta LR, Bright TG, Bowes WA. Triphasic randomized clinical trial: comparative frequency of intermenstrual bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:1407–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Attitudes toward contraception: report conducted for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organization, 1985.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Senanayake P, Kramer DG. Contraception and the etiology of pelvic inflammatory disease: new perspectives. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;138:852–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Louv WC, Austin H, Perlman J, Alexander WJ. Oral contraceptive use and the risk of chlamydial and gonococcal infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:396–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mishell DR. Oral contraception 1990: taking stock. Dialogues Contraception 1990;3(l):l-7.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Parazzini F, Negri E, Vecchi CL, Fedele L, Rabaiotti M, Luchini L. Oral contraceptive use and risk of uterine fibroids. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:430–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Vessey M, Metcalfe A, Wells C, McPherson K, Westhoff C, Yeates D. Ovarian neoplasms, functional ovarian cysts, and oral contraceptives. BMJ 1987;294:1518–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Holt VL, Daling JR, McNight B, Moore D, Stergachis A, Weiss NS. Functional ovarian cysts in relation to the use of monophasic and triphasic oral contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:529–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ory HW. The women’s health study: ectopic pregnancy and intrauterine contraceptive devices. Obstet Gynecol 1981;57:137–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Frassinelli-Gunderson EP, Margen S, Brown JR. Iron stores in users of oral contraceptive agents. Am J Clin Nutr 1985;41:703–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hazes JMW, Dijkmans BAC, Vanderbroucke JP. Reduction of the risk of rheumatoid arthritis among women who take oral contraceptives. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:173–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Woods ER, Grace E, Havens KK, Merola JL, Emans SJ. Contraceptive compliance with a levonorgestrel triphasic and a norethin-drone oral contraceptive in adolesent patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:901–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Casper RF, Powell AM. Evaluation and therapy of breakthrough bleeding in women using a triphasic oral contraceptive. Fertil Steril 1991;55:292–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Patsch W, Brown SA, Gotto AM, Young RL. The effect of triphasic oral contraceptives on plasma lipids and lipoproteins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:1396–1401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bowes WA, Katta LR, Droegemueller W, Bright TG. Triphasic randomized clinical trial: comparison of effects on carbohydrate metabolism. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:1402–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Upton GV. Lipids, cardiovascular disease, and oral contraceptives: a practical perspective. Fertil Steril 1990;53:1–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Godsland IF, Crook D, Simpson R, et al. The effects of different formulations of oral contraceptive agents on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. N Engl J Med 1990;323:1375–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Croft P, Hannaford PC. Risk factors for acute myocardial infarct in women: evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioner’s oral contraceptive study. BMJ 1989;298:165–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Speizer FE, Hannekens CH. A prospective study of past use of oral contraceptive agents and risk of cardiovascular diseases. N Engl J Med 1988;319: 1313–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gerstman BB, Piper JM, Tomita DK, Ferguson WJ, Stadel BV, Lundin FE. Oral contraceptive estrogen dose and the risk of deep venous thromboembolic disease. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:32–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Skouby SO, Anderson O, Kuhl C. Oral contraceptives and insulin receptor binding in normal women and those with previous gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:802–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bracken MB. Oral contraception and congenital malformations in offspring: a review and meta-analysis of the prospective studies. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:552–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Bracken MB, Hellenbrand KG, Holford TR. Conception delay after oral contraceptive use: the effect of estrogen dose. Fertil Steril 1990;53(l):21–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: oral contraceptive use and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1986;315:405–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Williams JK. Oral contraceptives and reproductive system cancer. J Reprod Med 1991;36:247–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Romieu I, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Stampfer M, Rosner B, Speizer F. Prospective study of oral contraceptive use and the risk of breast cancer in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:1313–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Schlesselman JJ. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:1379–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: the reduction in risk of ovarian cancer associated with oral contraceptive use. N Engl J Med 1987;316:650–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: combination oral contraceptive use and the risk of endometrial cancer. JAMA 1987;257:796–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Irwin KL, Rosero-Bixby L, Oberle MW, et al. Oral contraceptives and cervical cancer risk in Costa Rica. Detection bias or causal association? JAMA 1988;259:59–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Negrini BP, Schiffman MH, Kurman RJ, et al. Oral contraceptive use, human papillomavirus infection and risk of early cytological abnormalities of the cervix. Cancer Res 1990;50:4670–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Neuberger J, Forman D, Doll R, Williams R. Oral contraceptives and hepatocellular carcinoma. BMJ 1986;292:1355–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hatcher RA, Stewart F, Trussel J, et al. Implants, injections and other progestin-only contraceptives. In: Contraceptive Technology 1990–1992. 15th ed. New York: Irvington, 1992:301–34.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Shoupe D, Mishell DR. Norplant: subdermal implant system for long-term contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160:1286–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Konji JC, Otolorin EO, Lapido OA. The effect of continuous subdermal levonorgestrel (Norplant) on carbohydrate metabolism. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:15–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Singh K, Viegas OA, Liew D, Singh P, Ratnam SS. Two year follow-up of changes in clinical chemistry in Singaporean Norplant acceptors: metabolic changes. Contraception 1989;39:129–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Fakeye O, Balogh S. Effect of Norplant contraceptive use on hemoglobin, packed cell volume and menstrual bleeding patterns. Contraception 1989;39:265–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Sivin I, Stern J, Diaz S, et al. Rates and outcomes of planned pregnancy after use of Norplant capsules, Norplant II rods, or levonorgestrel-releasing or copper TCU 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1208–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara S. Apgar

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations