Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Familienplanung und Empfängnisverhütung bei der Frau in Deutschland

  • Chapter
125 Jahre Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Zusammenfassung

Frauen im reproduktiven Alter erwarten heute von einer kontrazeptiven Methode neben der reinen kontrazeptiven Wirkung auch sog. non-contraceptive benefits. Dazu zählen eine gute Zykluskontrolle, keine Dysmenorrhoe, Abnahme von Aktie und Seborrhoe, keine Gewichtszunahme, manche Frauen wünschen sich keine Blutung mehr. Die Methode soll keine zusätzlichen Risiken in sich bergen, wie Brustkrebs und kardiovaskuläre Risiken (z. B. venöse Thromboembolien). Als weiterer Vorteil der Pille ist z. B. die Abnahme von övarial- und En-dometriumkarzinomen um 50% mit einer Persistenz der Schutzwirkung auch nach Absetzen der Präparate zu sehen. Da diese Erkrankungen jedoch selten sind, hat die Schutzwirkung durch die Pille für die Patientin nur eine untergeordnete Bedeutung. Dennoch stellt die kontrazeptive Sicherheit einen wesentlichen Bestandteil bei der kontrazeptiven Beratung dar

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 14.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2006) ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 73: Use of hormonal contraception in women with coexisting medical conditions. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:1453–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer DF, Jensen JT, Johnson JV et al. (2006) Evaluation of a continuous regimen of levonorgestrel/ethinylestra- diol: phase 3 study results. Contraception 74:439–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft (2006) Aus der UAW-Datenbank: Misslungene Explantation des implantierbaren Kontrazeptivums Implanon®. Dt Ärzteblatt 103: A-1771, B-1519, C-1471

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird DT, Glasier AF (2000) The science, medicine, and future of contraception. West J Med 172(5):321–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • BZgA (2007) Verhütungsverhalten Erwachsener. Ergebnisse der Repräsentativbefragung

    Google Scholar 

  • Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (1996) Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Lancet 347:1713–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook L, Nanda K, Grimes D (2003) Diaphragm versus diaphragm with spermicides for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD002031

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromer BA; Scholes D; Berenson A et al. (2006) Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and bone mineral density in adolescents—the black box warning: a position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. J Adolesc Health 39:296–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • D'Arcangues C (2006) Future methods of fertility regulation. Training in Reproductive Health Research. World Health Organization, Geneva.www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/PGC_RH_2006/pdf/Future__IVle-thods_Darcangues_2006.pdf

  • Draper BH, Morroni C, Hoffman M et al. (2006) Depot medroxyprogesterone versus norethisterone oenanthate for long-acting progestogenic contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD005214

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman AB, Gallo MF, Jensen JT et al. (2005) Continuous or extended cycle vs. cyclic use of combined oral contraceptives for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD004695

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo MF, Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Cervical cap versus diaphragm for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(4):CD003551

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo MF, Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2003) Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD003552

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo MF, Grimes DA, Schulz KF et al. (2005) Combination injectable contraceptives for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD004568

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasier AF et al. (2010) Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomised non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis. Lancet Feb. 13; 375(9714)555–62. Epub 2010 Jan 29

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes DA, Gallo MF, Halpern V et al. (2004) Fertility awareness-based methods for contraception. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Art No.: CD004860. DOi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004860.pub2

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobstein R (2007) Long-acting and permanent contraception: an international development, service delivery perspective. J Midwifery Womens Health 52:361–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaunitz AM, Darney PD, Ross D et al. (2009) Subcutaneous DMPA vs. intramuscular DMPA: a 2-year randomized study of contraceptive efficacy and bone mineral density. Contraception 80:7–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaunitz AM (2007) Editorial. Long-acting Hormonal Contraceptives – Indispensable in Preventing Teen Pregnancy. Journal of Adolsescent Health 40:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulier R, Heimerhorst FM, O'Brien P (2006) Copper containing, framed intra-uterine devices for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD005347

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig M (2010) Gestagene in oralen Kontrazeptiva: Auswahl der Präparate nach dem Thromboserisiko. Frauenarzt 51:40–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardin JM, Kulier R, Boulvain M et al. (2002) Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4): CD003034

    Google Scholar 

  • New Product Preview (2003) Desogestrel-only pill (Cerazette); www.ffprhc.org.uk/pdfs/Cerazette%20CEC%20Approved%2029.04.03.pdf

  • O'Brien PA, Marfleet C (2005) Frameless versus classical intrauterine device for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD003282

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr-Walker BJ, Evans MC, Ames RW et al. (1998) The effect of past use of the injectable contraceptive depot me-droxyprogesterone acetate on bone mineral density in normal post-menopausal women. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 49:615–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pettiti DB, Piaggo G, Mehta S et al. (2000) Steroid hormone contraception and bone mineral density: a cross-sectional study in an international population: the WHO Study of Hormonal Contraception and Bone Health. Obstet Gynecol 95:736–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power J, French R, Cowan F (2007) Subdermal implantable contraceptives versus other forms of reversible contraceptives or other implants as effective methods of preventing pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD001326

    Google Scholar 

  • RabeT, Ludwig M, Luxembourg B et al. (2009) Thrombophilie in der Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. J Reprodukti-onsmed. Endokrinol 6(4): 156–164

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe T (2007) Contraception – Update and Trends. J. Reproduktionsmed. Endokrinol 4 (6): 337–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Ichikawa LE et al. (2005) Change in bone density among adolescent women using and discontinuing depot medroxyprogesterone acetate contraception. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 159:139–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Ichikawa LE et al. (2002) Injectable hormone contraception and bone density: results from a prospective study. Epidemiology 13:581–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S, Rosenberg L, Hoffman M et al. (2000) Risk of Breast Cancer in Relation to the Use of Injectable Progesto-gen Contraceptives and Combined Estrogen/Progestogen Contraceptives. Am J Epidemiol 151:396–403

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skegg DCG, Noonan EA, Paul C et al (1995) Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate and Breast Cancer. A Pooled Analysis of the World Health Organization and New Zealand Studies. JAMA 273(10):799–804

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner MJ, Lopez LM, Grimes DA et al. (2010) Sino-implant (II) — a levonorgestrel-releasing two-rod implant: systematic review of the randomized controlled trials, Contraception 81 197–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Strom BL, Berlin JA, Weber AL et al. (2004) Absence of an effect of injectable and implantable progestin-only contraceptives on subsequent risk of breast cancer. Contraception 69:353–360

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tepe M, Mestad R, Secura G et al. (2010) Association Between Tampon Use and Choosing the Contraceptive Vaginal Ring. Obstet Gynecol 115:735–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trussell J, Raymond EG (2009) Emergency Contraception: A Last Chance to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy; www.ec.princeton.edu/questions/ec-review.pdf

  • Trussell J (2007) Contraceptive Efficacy. In: Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL et al. (eds) Contraceptive Technology. 19th ed. New York, NY: Ardent Media, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trussell J (2007) The Essentials of Contraception: Efficacy, Safety, and Personal Considerations. In: Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL et al. (eds) Contraceptive Technology. 19th ed. New York, NY: Ardent Media, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vliet HAAM, Grimes DA, Heimerhorst FM et al. (2006) Biphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD002032

    Google Scholar 

  • Westhoff CL (2003) Depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (Depo- Provera): a highly effective contraceptive option with proven longterm safety. Contraception 68:75–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2002) Research and Reproductive Health 20002001, World Health Organisation Geneva (via Google Books online verfügbar)

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (2005) WHO Statement on Hormonal Contraception and Bone Health Available from: www.whojnt/reproductive-health/family_planning/docs/hormonal_contraception_bone_health.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitäts-Frauenklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg, 59120, Voss Strasse 9

    Prof. Dr. med. Thomas Rabe

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. med. Thomas Rabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rabe, T. (2011). Familienplanung und Empfängnisverhütung bei der Frau in Deutschland. In: 125 Jahre Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15012-8_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15012-8_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-15011-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-15012-8

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation