UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2015 UpToDate®

Management of problems related to intrauterine contraception

Authors
Gillian Dean, MD, MPH
Alisa B Goldberg, MD, MPH
Section Editor
Mimi Zieman, MD
Deputy Editor
Kristen Eckler, MD, FACOG

INTRODUCTION

Intrauterine contraception is generally well-tolerated, but side-effects and complications sometimes occur. This topic will review management of the most common problems related to intrauterine contraception with the copper T380A intrauterine device (IUD) (called TCu380A) and the IUD containing 52 mg levonorgestrel (called LNg20 because of an initial release-rate of levonorgestrel 20 mcg daily). At this time, there are sparse data on the newer IUD containing 13.5 mg levonorgestrel (called LNg14 because of an initial release-rate of levonorgestrel 14 mcg daily).

General issues related to intrauterine contraception and insertion and removal of IUDs are discussed separately. (See "Intrauterine contraception (IUD): Overview" and "Insertion and removal of an intrauterine contraceptive device".)

Several terms are used to describe intrauterine contraception, including intrauterine device (IUD) and intrauterine contraceptive (IUC); the LNg20 is also referred to as an intrauterine system (IUS). In this topic, we use the term IUD for all types of intrauterine contraception.

EXPULSION

Expulsion risk is greatest in the first year of use and decreases thereafter [1]. In the first year of use, expulsion occurs in 3 to 10 percent of women with the TCu380A and 3 to 6 percent of women with the LNg20 IUD [1-5]. In a large retrospective study, the risk of expulsion with the TCu380A was double that of the LNg20 (6 versus 3 percent at 12 months) [1]. The manufacturer of the LNg14 IUD reports an expulsion rate of 3.2 percent; however, data are limited.

Risk factors for expulsion include prior expulsion [1,6], menorrhagia, severe dysmenorrhea [7], and insertion immediately after a second trimester abortion or postpartum [8,9]. There is no increased risk of expulsion with insertion immediately after first trimester abortion compared with interval insertion [10]. Nulliparity does not appear to increase the risk of IUD expulsion, while the effect of young age (less than 20 years) is unclear [1,2,7,11]. The length of the endometrial cavity does not appear to be a risk factor for expulsion of modern IUDs [12,13].

                         

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Feb 2015. | This topic last updated: Sep 30, 2014.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2015 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Aoun J, Dines VA, Stovall DW, et al. Effects of age, parity, and device type on complications and discontinuation of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123:585.
  2. Rivera R, Chen-Mok M, McMullen S. Analysis of client characteristics that may affect early discontinuation of the TCu-380A IUD. Contraception 1999; 60:155.
  3. Long-term reversible contraception. Twelve years of experience with the TCu380A and TCu220C. Contraception 1997; 56:341.
  4. Sivin I, Schmidt F. Effectiveness of IUDs: a review. Contraception 1987; 36:55.
  5. Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1987; 753:1.
  6. Bahamondes L, Díaz J, Marchi NM, et al. Performance of copper intrauterine devices when inserted after an expulsion. Hum Reprod 1995; 10:2917.
  7. Zhang J, Feldblum PJ, Chi IC, Farr MG. Risk factors for copper T IUD expulsion: an epidemiologic analysis. Contraception 1992; 46:427.
  8. Grimes DA, Lopez LM, Schulz KF, Stanwood NL. Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; :CD001777.
  9. Grimes DA, Lopez LM, Schulz KF, et al. Immediate post-partum insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; :CD003036.
  10. Jacob NS, Mahnert N, Livingston JB, et al. Comparison of intrauterine device expulsion rates after aspiration abortion or interval insertion. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 Suppl 1:10S.
  11. Madden T, McNicholas C, Zhao Q, et al. Association of age and parity with intrauterine device expulsion. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124:718.
  12. Bahamondes MV, Monteiro I, Canteiro R, et al. Length of the endometrial cavity and intrauterine contraceptive device expulsion. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 113:50.
  13. Liang H, Li L, Yuan W, et al. Dimensions of the endometrial cavity and intrauterine device expulsion or removal for displacement: a nested case-control study. BJOG 2014; 121:997.
  14. el-Zeneiny AH, Ammar AR, Badawi SZ. Expulsion of the intrauterine devices Lippes loop size 30 mm. J Egypt Med Assoc 1969; 52:46.
  15. Tepper NK, Zapata LB, Jamieson DJ, Curtis KM. Use of intrauterine devices in women with uterine anatomic abnormalities. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 109:52.
  16. Thonneau P, Almont T, de La Rochebrochard E, Maria B. Risk factors for IUD failure: results of a large multicentre case-control study. Hum Reprod 2006; 21:2612.
  17. Braaten KP, Benson CB, Maurer R, Goldberg AB. Malpositioned intrauterine contraceptive devices: risk factors, outcomes, and future pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118:1014.
  18. Palo P. Transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound detection of levonorgestrel IUD in the uterus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76:244.
  19. Reiner JS, Brindle KA, Khati NJ. Multimodality imaging of intrauterine devices with an emphasis on the emerging role of 3-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Q 2012; 28:251.
  20. Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B. Three-dimensional ultrasound detection of abnormally located intrauterine contraceptive devices which are a source of pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34:110.
  21. Pakarinen P, Luukkainen T. Five years' experience with a small intracervical/intrauterine levonorgestrel-releasing device. Contraception 2005; 72:342.
  22. Doris N, Shabib G, Corbett S, et al. Does an intraabdominally placed LNG-IUS have an adverse effect on fertility? A case report. Contraception 2014; 89:63.
  23. Inal MM, Ertopçu K, Ozelmas I. The evaluation of 318 intrauterine pregnancy cases with an intrauterine device. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2005; 10:266.
  24. Anteby E, Revel A, Ben-Chetrit A, et al. Intrauterine device failure: relation to its location within the uterine cavity. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81:112.
  25. Petta CA, Faúndes D, Pimentel E, et al. The use of vaginal ultrasound to identify copper T IUDs at high risk of expulsion. Contraception 1996; 54:287.
  26. Morales-Roselló J. Spontaneous upward movement of lowly placed T-shaped IUDs. Contraception 2005; 72:430.
  27. Faundes D, Perdigao A, Faundes A, et al. T-shaped IUDs accomodate to their position during the first three months after insertion. Contraception 2000; 62:165.
  28. Ber A, Seidman DS. Management of the malpositioned levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception 2012; 85:369.
  29. Peri N, Graham D, Levine D. Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26:1389.
  30. Marchi NM, Castro S, Hidalgo MM, et al. Management of missing strings in users of intrauterine contraceptives. Contraception 2012; 86:354.
  31. Mizia K, Ramsay P. The effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided removal of a Mirena(®) intrauterine system when the strings are not visible and conventional office procedures have failed. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 53:386.
  32. Güney M, Oral B, Mungan T. Efficacy of intrauterine lidocaine for removal of a "lost" intrauterine device: a randomized, controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108:119.
  33. Prabhakaran S, Chuang A. In-office retrieval of intrauterine contraceptive devices with missing strings. Contraception 2011; 83:102.
  34. Wilson S, Tan G, Baylson M, Schreiber C. Controversies in family planning: how to manage a fractured IUD. Contraception 2013; 88:599.
  35. Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, et al. Uterine perforation caused by intrauterine devices: clinical course and treatment. Hum Reprod 2013; 28:1546.
  36. Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, et al. Contraceptive Technology, 19th ed, Ardent Media, Inc., New York 2007.
  37. Chen CP, Hsu TC, Wang W. Ileal penetration by a Multiload-Cu 375 intrauterine contraceptive device. A case report with review of the literature. Contraception 1998; 58:295.
  38. Adoni A, Ben Chetrit A. The management of intrauterine devices following uterine perforation. Contraception 1991; 43:77.
  39. Zakin D, Stern WZ, Rosenblatt R. Complete and partial uterine perforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterine devices. II. Diagnostic methods, prevention, and management. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1981; 36:401.
  40. Markovitch O, Klein Z, Gidoni Y, et al. Extrauterine mislocated IUD: is surgical removal mandatory? Contraception 2002; 66:105.
  41. Vasquez P, Schreiber CA. The missing IUD. Contraception 2010; 82:126.
  42. Gill RS, Mok D, Hudson M, et al. Laparoscopic removal of an intra-abdominal intrauterine device: case and systematic review. Contraception 2012; 85:15.
  43. Andersson K, Ryde-Blomqvist E, Lindell K, et al. Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey. Contraception 1998; 57:251.
  44. Ozgun MT, Batukan C, Serin IS, et al. Surgical management of intra-abdominal mislocated intrauterine devices. Contraception 2007; 75:96.
  45. Speroff L, Darney P. A Clinical Guide for Contraception, 3rd ed, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 2001.
  46. Dietrick DD, Issa MM, Kabalin JN, Bassett JB. Intravesical migration of intrauterine device. J Urol 1992; 147:132.
  47. El-Hefnawy AS, El-Nahas AR, Osman Y, Bazeed MA. Urinary complications of migrated intrauterine contraceptive device. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008; 19:241.
  48. Singh I. Intravesical Cu-T emigration: an atypical and infrequent cause of vesical calculus. Int Urol Nephrol 2007; 39:457.
  49. Khan ZA, Khan SA, Williams A, Mobb GE. Intravesical migration of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with calculus formation. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2006; 11:243.
  50. Heinberg EM, McCoy TW, Pasic R. The perforated intrauterine device: endoscopic retrieval. JSLS 2008; 12:97.
  51. Nitke S, Rabinerson D, Dekel A, et al. Lost levonorgestrel IUD: diagnosis and therapy. Contraception 2004; 69:289.
  52. Hubacher D, Chen PL, Park S. Side effects from the copper IUD: do they decrease over time? Contraception 2009; 79:356.
  53. Sivin I, Stern J. Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20 micrograms/d and the copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: a multicenter study. International Committee for Contraception Research (ICCR). Fertil Steril 1994; 61:70.
  54. Baveja R, Bichille LK, Coyaji KJ, et al. Randomized clinical trial with intrauterine devices (levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG), CuT 380Ag, CuT 220C and CuT 200B). A 36-month study. Indian Council of Medical Research Task Force on IUD. Contraception 1989; 39:37.
  55. Meirik O, Rowe PJ, Peregoudov A, et al. The frameless copper IUD (GyneFix) and the TCu380A IUD: results of an 8-year multicenter randomized comparative trial. Contraception 2009; 80:133.
  56. Jensen JT, Nelson AL, Costales AC. Subject and clinician experience with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception 2008; 77:22.
  57. Lindh I, Milsom I. The influence of intrauterine contraception on the prevalence and severity of dysmenorrhea: a longitudinal population study. Hum Reprod 2013; 28:1953.
  58. Gemzell-Danielsson K, Schellschmidt I, Apter D. A randomized, phase II study describing the efficacy, bleeding profile, and safety of two low-dose levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive systems and Mirena. Fertil Steril 2012; 97:616.
  59. Nelson AL, Hatcher RA, Zieman M, et al. Managing Contraception. Tiger, Georgia: Bridging the Gap Foundation, 2000.
  60. Rönnerdag M, Odlind V. Late bleeding problems with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: evaluation of the endometrial cavity. Contraception 2007; 75:268.
  61. Ozalp S, Kabukcuoglu S, Tanir HM. Should endometrial hyperplasia be regarded as a reason for abnormal uterine bleeding in users of the intrauterine contraceptive device? Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2003; 8:17.
  62. Tsanadis G, Kalantaridou SN, Kaponis A, et al. Bacteriological cultures of removed intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease. Contraception 2002; 65:339.
  63. Milsom I, Andersson K, Jonasson K, et al. The influence of the Gyne-T 380S IUD on menstrual blood loss and iron status. Contraception 1995; 52:175.
  64. Rönnerdag M, Odlind V. Health effects of long-term use of the intrauterine levonorgestrel-releasing system. A follow-up study over 12 years of continuous use. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78:716.
  65. Hidalgo M, Bahamondes L, Perrotti M, et al. Bleeding patterns and clinical performance of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) up to two years. Contraception 2002; 65:129.
  66. Nilsson CG, Lähteenmäki PL, Luukkainen T. Ovarian function in amenorrheic and menstruating users of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. Fertil Steril 1984; 41:52.
  67. Faúndes A, Alvarez F, Díaz J. A Latin American experience with levonorgestrel IUD. Ann Med 1993; 25:149.
  68. Backman T, Huhtala S, Blom T, et al. Length of use and symptoms associated with premature removal of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system: a nation-wide study of 17,360 users. BJOG 2000; 107:335.
  69. Farley TM, Rosenberg MJ, Rowe PJ, et al. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective. Lancet 1992; 339:785.
  70. Lee NC, Rubin GL, Borucki R. The intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease revisited: new results from the Women's Health Study. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72:1.
  71. Walsh T, Grimes D, Frezieres R, et al. Randomised controlled trial of prophylactic antibiotics before insertion of intrauterine devices. IUD Study Group. Lancet 1998; 351:1005.
  72. Grimes DA. Intrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infection. Lancet 2000; 356:1013.
  73. Toivonen J, Luukkainen T, Allonen H. Protective effect of intrauterine release of levonorgestrel on pelvic infection: three years' comparative experience of levonorgestrel- and copper-releasing intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77:261.
  74. Feldblum PJ, Caraway J, Bahamondes L, et al. Randomized assignment to copper IUD or depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate: feasibility of enrollment, continuation and disease ascertainment. Contraception 2005; 72:187.
  75. Tepper NK, Steenland MW, Gaffield ME, et al. Retention of intrauterine devices in women who acquire pelvic inflammatory disease: a systematic review. Contraception 2013; 87:655.
  76. US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr62e0614.pdf. (Accessed on June 14, 2013).
  77. Murray S, Hickey JB, Houang E. Significant bacteremia associated with replacement of intrauterine contraceptive device. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156:698.
  78. Shoubnikova M, Hellberg D, Nilsson S, Mårdh PA. Contraceptive use in women with bacterial vaginosis. Contraception 1997; 55:355.
  79. Hodoglugil NN, Aslan D, Bertan M. Intrauterine device use and some issues related to sexually transmitted disease screening and occurrence. Contraception 2000; 61:359.
  80. Persson E, Holmberg K, Dahlgren S, Nilsson L. Actinomyces israelii in the genital tract of women with and without intra-uterine contraceptive devices. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1983; 62:563.
  81. Fiorino AS. Intrauterine contraceptive device-associated actinomycotic abscess and Actinomyces detection on cervical smear. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87:142.
  82. Keebler C, Chatwani A, Schwartz R. Actinomycosis infection associated with intrauterine contraceptive devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 145:596.
  83. Lippes J. Pelvic actinomycosis: a review and preliminary look at prevalence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180:265.
  84. Westhoff C. IUDs and colonization or infection with Actinomyces. Contraception 2007; 75:S48.
  85. Agents of Actinomycosis. In: Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 6th ed, Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R (Eds), Elsevier, Oxford 2004. p.2929.
  86. Sudhakar SS, Ross JJ. Short-term treatment of actinomycosis: two cases and a review. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:444.
  87. Merki-Feld GS, Lebeda E, Hogg B, Keller PJ. The incidence of actinomyces-like organisms in Papanicolaou-stained smears of copper- and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. Contraception 2000; 61:365.
  88. Klug CD, Keay CR, Ginde AA. Fatal toxic shock syndrome from an intrauterine device. Ann Emerg Med 2009; 54:701.
  89. Venkataramanasetty R, Aburawi A, Phillip H. Streptococcal toxic shock syndrome following insertion of an intrauterine device--a case report. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2009; 14:379.
  90. Gisser JM, Fields MC, Pick N, et al. Invasive group a streptococcus associated with an intrauterine device and oral sex. Sex Transm Dis 2002; 29:483.
  91. Turok DK, Gurtcheff SE, Gibson K, et al. Operative management of intrauterine device complications: a case series report. Contraception 2010; 82:354.
  92. Yegüez JF, Martinez SA, Sands LR, Hellinger MD. Pelvic actinomycosis presenting as malignant large bowel obstruction: a case report and a review of the literature. Am Surg 2000; 66:85.
  93. Nugteren SK, Ouwendijk RJ, Jonkman JG, et al. Colitis and lower abdominal mass by Actinomyces israelii in a patient with an IUD. Neth J Med 1996; 49:73.
  94. Sivin I. Utility and drawbacks of continuous use of a copper T IUD for 20 years. Contraception 2007; 75:S70.
  95. Moschos E, Twickler DM. Intrauterine devices in early pregnancy: findings on ultrasound and clinical outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204:427.e1.
  96. Brahmi D, Steenland MW, Renner RM, et al. Pregnancy outcomes with an IUD in situ: a systematic review. Contraception 2012; 85:131.
  97. World Health Organization. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/family_planning/9241562846index/en/index.html (Accessed on January 13, 2012).
  98. Sachs BP, Gregory K, McArdle C, Pinshaw A. Removal of retained intrauterine contraceptive devices in pregnancy. Am J Perinatol 1992; 9:139.
  99. Sviggum O, Skjeldestad FE, Tuveng JM. Ultrasonically guided retrieval of occult IUD in early pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991; 70:355.
  100. Owen C, Sober S, Schreiber CA. Controversies in family planning: desired pregnancy, IUD in situ and no strings visible. Contraception 2013; 88:330.
  101. Assaf A, Gohar M, Saad S, et al. Removal of intrauterine devices with missing tails during early pregnancy. Contraception 1992; 45:541.
  102. Lin JC, Chen YO, Lin BL, Valle RF. Outcome of removal of intrauterine devices with flexible hysteroscopy in early pregnancy. J Gynecol Surg 1993; 9:195.
  103. Hopkins MR, Agudelo-Suarez P, El-Nashar SA, et al. Term pregnancy with intraperitoneal levonorgestrel intrauterine system: a case report and review of the literature. Contraception 2009; 79:323.
  104. Weissmann-Brenner A, Lerner A, Peleg D. Transverse limb reduction and intrauterine device: case report and review of the literature. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2007; 12:294.
  105. 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.
  106. Stubblefield PG, Fuller AF Jr, Foster SC. Ultrasound-guided intrauterine removal of intrauterine contraceptive devices in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72:961.
  107. Koetsawang S, Rachawat D, Piya-Anant M. Outcome of pregnancy in the presence of intrauterine device. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1977; 56:479.
  108. Sivin I, Stern J, Coutinho E, et al. Prolonged intrauterine contraception: a seven-year randomized study of the levonorgestrel 20 mcg/day (LNg 20) and the Copper T380 Ag IUDS. Contraception 1991; 44:473.
  109. Andersson K, Odlind V, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova T) IUDs during five years of use: a randomized comparative trial. Contraception 1994; 49:56.
  110. Fahmy K, Ismail H, Sammour M, et al. Cervical pathology with intrauterine contraceptive devices--a cyto-colpo-pathological study. Contraception 1990; 41:317.
  111. Misra JS, Engineer AD, Tandon P. Cervical cytology associated with levonorgestrel contraception. Acta Cytol 1995; 39:45.
  112. Kaplan B, Orvieto R, Hirsch M, et al. The impact of intrauterine contraceptive devices on cytological findings from routine Pap smear testing. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1998; 3:75.
  113. Bailey AP, Darracott MM. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure with an intrauterine device in place. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203:291.e1.