The Endometrium and the IUD

  • D. Serfaty
  • H. Yaneva
Conference paper


In mammals, the primary effect of intrauterine foreign bodies is to prevent pregnancy. How? The mechanisms of action are as yet uncertain and vary depending on the type of device [1]. In the case of inert and copper IUDs, the endometrium is the site of the essential contraceptive effect. This is an antiimplantation effect that is secondary to the changes in the endometrium and its functioning [2]. The IUD first causes injury to the endometrium, the extent of which depends on the shape and, especially, the size of the IUD. When in contact with the IUD, the mucosa becomes flattened, crushed, atrophic, and eroded. The second important change is a nonspecific inflammatory response (that of an endometrium reacting to a foreign body). This response consists of a focal inflammatory infiltrate containing polymorphonuclear cells, lymphocytes, plasma cells, macrophages, and, infrequently, giant cells. The inflammatory reaction is especially marked where the endometrium is in contact with the IUD. The IUD also causes vascular changes: altered permeability and diffuse microthrombosis of the capillaries in the endometrial stroma in contact with the IUD. These vascular changes, together with the presence of inflammatory cells, induce the release of numerous substances such as histamine, prostaglandins (PGE2 and PGE) — the levels of which are increased in the uterus with an IUD (which explains some cases of uterine pain) — and plasminogen activators, especially a proteolytic enzyme responsible for enhancing the fibrinolytic activity of the endometrium (this may be the cause of certain cases of uterine bleeding and may damage the blastocyst and/or prevent its implantation).


Fallopian Tube Pelvic Pain Uterine Bleeding Cervical Mucus Intrauterine Pregnancy 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Serfaty D (1986) Les dispositifs intra-utérins. In: Serfaty D (ed) La contraception. Doin, Paris, pp 335–361Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Audebert A (1982) Contraception par stérilet. Rev Med Interne 18:947–969Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dawood MY (1985) Etiology and treatment of dysmenorrhea. Semin Reprod Endocrinol 3:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rozenbaum H, Papiernik-Berkhauser E (1987) Grossesse sur DIU et Interactions médicamenteuses. Encyclopédie Médico-Chirurgicale — Instantanés Médicaux. 1987, 58è Année, n°l, pp 3–4Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buhler M, Papiernik E (1983) Successive pregnancies in women fitted with intrauterine devices who take antiinflammatory drugs. Lancet:483Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Serfaty D (1986) Interaction des médicaments et des dispositifs intrautérins. In: Serfaty D (ed) La contraception. Doin, Paris, pp 421–425Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Serfaty D (1986) Le stérilet à la progestérone. In: Serfaty D (ed) La contraception. Doin, Paris, pp 395–405Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Serfaty D (1986) Dispositifs intra-utérins au lévonorgestrel. In: Serfaty D (ed) La contraception. Doin, Paris, pp 406–416Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen J (1986) Dispositifs intra-utérins et infection génitale. In: Serfaty D (ed) La contraception. Doin, Paris, pp 385–394Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henry-Suchet J, Holwani N (1986) Les grossesses utérines et extra-utérines chez les femmes porteuses de stérilet. In: Serfaty D (ed) La contraception. Doin, Paris, pp 379–384Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Serfaty
    • 1
  • H. Yaneva
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre de Régulation des NaissancesHôpital Saint-LouisParisFrance
  2. 2.Hôpital NeckerParisFrance

Personalised recommendations