BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine factors that could help reduce primary perforation during insertion of a framed intrauterine device (IUD) and to determine factors that contribute in generating enough uterine muscle force to cause embedment and secondary perforation of an IUD. The objective was also to evaluate the main underlying mechanism of IUD expulsion.MethodsWe compared known IUD insertion forces for “framed” devices with known perforation forces in vitro (hysterectomy specimens) and known IUD removal forces and calculated a range of possible intrauterine forces using pressure and surface area. These were compared with known perforation forces.ResultsIUD insertion forces range from 1.5 N to 6.5 N. Removal forces range from 1 N to 5.8 N and fracture forces from 8.7 N to 30 N depending upon device. Measured perforation forces are from 20 N to 54 N, and calculations show the uterus is capable of generating up to 50 N of myometrial force depending on internal pressure and surface area.ConclusionPrimary perforation with conventional framed IUDs may occur if the insertion pressure exceeds the perforation resistance of the uterine fundus. This is more likely to occur if the front end of the inserter/IUD is narrow, the passage through the cervix is difficult, and the procedure is complex. IUD embedment and secondary perforation and IUD expulsion may be due to imbalance between the size of the IUD and that of the uterine cavity, causing production of asymmetrical uterine forces. The uterine muscle seems capable of generating enough force to cause an IUD to perforate the myometrium provided it is applied asymmetrically. A physical theory for IUD expulsion and secondary IUD perforation is given.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this paper is to review the experience with the frameless, anchored, GyneFix copper-releasing intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUCDs/IUDs) (Contrel Europe, Belgium), and to demonstrate their high acceptability and low rate of discontinuation of use, which could contribute to current efforts that aim to reduce radically the high number of unintended pregnancies and induced abortions, particularly in young women.Materials and methodsThis paper is based on studies that examined the differences in uterine volume and cavity size, related to age and parity, and on original clinical research data and practical experience with frameless copper IUDs, as well as on literature data on the IUD–endometrial cavity relationship of conventional IUDs, with special reference to side effects and user discontinuation.ResultsThe mean transverse diameter in nulliparous and parous women is significantly less than the length of the transverse arm of the TCu380A IUD (ParaGard, Duramed, NY, USA) or the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (Mirena, Bayer, Germany). Small, frameless, flexible, and unidimensional copper IUDs appear to be well tolerated, with less impact on menstrual bleeding, resulting in low discontinuation rates when compared with standard-size conventional IUDs, which often result in increased expulsion rates, complaints of pain and erratic or increased menstrual bleeding, and subsequent high rates of discontinuation, particularly in young women.ConclusionThe unidimensional GyneFix IUDs fit the majority of uterine cavities. An IUD that fits is likely to result in increased tolerance and continued use of the method. As this would appeal to women, the logical result should be greater use of the method and fewer unintended pregnancies and induced abortions. Recommending the standard TCu380A (ParaGard) IUD or the Mirena levonorgestrel intrauterine system, primarily developed for use in parous women, for general use in nulliparous and adolescent women should be done with caution in the light of current scientific evidence, except if 3-D sonography indicates that the uterine cavity is sufficiently large.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract