Challenging IUD Procedures

  • Amy Yoxthimer
  • Rebecca H. Allen


Nulligravid and nulliparous adolescents and young adults have similar rates of successful intrauterine device (IUD) placement compared to older and multiparous individuals. Provider experience with IUD procedures is the most important factor contributing to successful provision of IUD services with patients of any age or parity. Most challenges that arise during IUD placement can be successfully resolved using strategies that do not require advanced training. When advanced skills are required, mechanical or pharmacologic dilation with or without ultrasound guidance will generally result in successful placement. Using algorithms to identify and overcome challenges that arise, such as those provided in this book, will improve success with adolescent and young adult IUD procedures. This chapter will provide clinical strategies to address the common factors that contribute to challenging IUD placements for adolescents and young adults, describe techniques to facilitate IUD placement in challenging scenarios, and discuss approaches to manage difficult IUD removals.


IUD Adolescent Young adult Copper IUD Levonorgestrel IUD IUD insertion IUD removal Difficult procedures 



Adolescent and young adults


Body mass index


Copper IUD


Intrauterine device




  1. 1.
    McNicholas C, Madden T, Secura G, Peipert JF. The contraceptive CHOICE project round up: what we did and what we learned. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57:635–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen R, Sheeder J, Kane M, Teal SB. Factors Associated With Contraceptive Method Choice and Initiation in Adolescents and Young Women. J Adolesc Health. 2017;61:454–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colorado’s success with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Department of Public Health and Environment [Internet]. [cited 3 Dec 2018]. Available:
  4. 4.
    Daniels K, Daugherty J, Jones J, Mosher W. Current Contraceptive Use and Variation by Selected Characteristics Among Women Aged 15-44: United States, 2011-2013. Natl Health Stat Report. 2015;86:1–14.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindberg L, Santelli J, Desai S. Understanding the Decline in Adolescent Fertility in the United States, 2007-2012. J Adolesc Health. 2016;59:577–83.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luchowski AT, Anderson BL, Power ML, Raglan GB, Espey E, Schulkin J. Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: practice and opinions about the use of IUDs in nulliparous women, adolescents and other patient populations. Contraception. 2014;89:572–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harper CC, Blum M, de Bocanegra HT, Darney PD, Speidel JJ, Policar M, et al. Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1359–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teal SB, Romer SE, Goldthwaite LM, Peters MG, Kaplan DW, Sheeder J. Insertion characteristics of intrauterine devices in adolescents and young women: success, ancillary measures, and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:515.e1–5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marions L, Lövkvist L, Taube A, Johansson M, Dalvik H, Øverlie I. Use of the levonorgestrel releasing-intrauterine system in nulliparous women--a non-interventional study in Sweden. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2011;16:126–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bayer LL, Jensen JT, Li H, Nichols MD, Bednarek PH. Adolescent experience with intrauterine device insertion and use: a retrospective cohort study. Contraception. 2012;86:443–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bahamondes MV, Hidalgo MM, Bahamondes L, Monteiro I. Ease of insertion and clinical performance of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in nulligravidas. Contraception. 2011;84:e11–6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barnett C, Moehner S, Do Minh T, Heinemann K. Perforation risk and intra-uterine devices: results of the EURAS-IUD 5-year extension study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22:424–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jatlaoui TC, Riley HEM, Curtis KM. The safety of intrauterine devices among young women: a systematic review. Contraception. 2017;95:17–39.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farmer M, Webb A. Intrauterine device insertion-related complications: can they be predicted? J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2003;29:227–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ireland LD, Allen RH. Pain Management for Gynecologic Procedures in the Office. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016;71:89–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gemzell-Danielsson K, Mansour D, Fiala C, Kaunitz AM, Bahamondes L. Management of pain associated with the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:419–27.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bahamondes L, Mansour D, Fiala C, Kaunitz AM, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Practical advice for avoidance of pain associated with insertion of intrauterine contraceptives. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2014;40:54–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Christianson MS, Barker MA, Lindheim SR. Overcoming the challenging cervix: techniques to access the uterine cavity. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2008;12:24–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schorge J, Halvorson L, Schaffer J, Corton MM, Bradshaw K, Hoffman B. Williams Gynecology. 3rd ed: McGraw-Hill Education/Medical. Available at:; 2016.
  20. 20.
    Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, Berry-Bibee E, Horton LG, Zapata LB, et al. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65:1–103.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Higginbotham S, Society of Family Planning. Contraceptive considerations in obese women: release date 1 September 2009, SFP Guideline 20091. Contraception. 2009;80:583–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nahum GG. Uterine anomalies. How common are they, and what is their distribution among subtypes? J Reprod Med. 1998;43:877–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gottlieb AG, Galan HL. Shoulder dystocia: an update. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2007;34:501–31.. xiiGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ACOG Committee Opinion No. 735: Adolescents and Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Implants and Intrauterine Devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e130–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zapata LB, Jatlaoui TC, Marchbanks PA, Curtis KM. Medications to ease intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review. Contraception. 2016;94:739–59.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Matthews LR, OʼDwyer L, OʼNeill E. Intrauterine Device Insertion Failure After Misoprostol Administration: A Systematic Review. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:1084–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bahamondes MV, Espejo-Arce X, Bahamondes L. Effect of vaginal administration of misoprostol before intrauterine contraceptive insertion following previous insertion failure: a double blind RCT. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1861–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Espey E, Singh RH, Leeman L, Ogburn T, Fowler K, Greene H. Misoprostol for intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:208.e1–5.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fiala C, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Tang OS, von Hertzen H. Cervical priming with misoprostol prior to transcervical procedures. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99(Suppl 2):S168–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meckstroth KR, Whitaker AK, Bertisch S, Goldberg AB, Darney PD. Misoprostol administered by epithelial routes: Drug absorption and uterine response. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:582–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chai J, Wong CYG, Ho PC. A randomized clinical trial comparing the short-term side effects of sublingual and buccal routes of misoprostol administration for medical abortions up to 63 days’ gestation. Contraception. 2013;87:480–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vickery Z, Madden T. Difficult intrauterine contraception insertion in a nulligravid patient. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:391–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marchi NM, Castro S, Hidalgo MM, Hidalgo C, Monteiro-Dantas C, Villarroeal M, et al. Management of missing strings in users of intrauterine contraceptives. Contraception. 2012;86:354–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tugrul S, Yavuzer B, Yildirim G, Kayahan A. The duration of use, causes of discontinuation, and problems during removal in women admitted for removal of IUD. Contraception. 2005;71:149–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prabhakaran S, Chuang A. In-office retrieval of intrauterine contraceptive devices with missing strings. Contraception. 2011;83:102–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Curtis KM, Jatlaoui TC, Tepper NK, Zapata LB, Horton LG, Jamieson DJ, et al. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65:1–66.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Swenson C, Royer PA, Turok DK, Jacobson JC, Amaral G, Sanders JN. Removal of the LNG IUD when strings are not visible: a case series. Contraception. 2014;90:288–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Verma U, Astudillo-Dávalos FE, Gerkowicz SA. Safe and cost-effective ultrasound guided removal of retained intrauterine device: our experience. Contraception. 2015;92:77–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Turok DK, Gurtcheff SE, Gibson K, Handley E, Simonsen S, Murphy PA. Operative management of intrauterine device complications: a case series report. Contraception. 2010;82:354–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Minh TD. Comparative contraceptive effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices: the European Active Surveillance Study for Intrauterine Devices. Contraception. 2015;91:280–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Backman T, Rauramo I, Huhtala S, Koskenvuo M. Pregnancy during the use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:50–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Owen C, Sober S, Schreiber CA. Controversies in family planning: desired pregnancy, IUD in situ and no strings visible. Contraception. 2013;88:330–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sanders AP, Fluker MR, Sanders BH. Saline Hysteroscopy for Removal of Retained Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices in Early Pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016;38:1114–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brahmi D, Steenland MW, Renner R-M, Gaffield ME, Curtis KM. Pregnancy outcomes with an IUD in situ: a systematic review. Contraception. 2012;85:131–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McCarthy EA, Jagasia N, Maher P, Robinson M. Ultrasound-guided hysteroscopy to remove a levonorgestrel intrauterine system in early pregnancy. Contraception. 2012;86:587–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schiesser M, Lapaire O, Tercanli S, Holzgreve W. Lost intrauterine devices during pregnancy: maternal and fetal outcome after ultrasound-guided extraction. An analysis of 82 cases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:486–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy Yoxthimer
    • 1
  • Rebecca H. Allen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Women’s HealthOpen Door Family Medical CentersBrewsterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyWomen and Infants Hospital, Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations