Analysis of risk factors associated with uterine perforation by intrauterine devices

Çalışkan, Eray; Öztürk, Nilgün Turhan; Dilbaz, Berna; Dilbaz, Serdar

doi:10.1080/713604445

Cited by 50 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Midwives and practitioners perform this procedure aft er training and certifi cation (Caliskan et al 2003). Trained midwives inserted 12 of the IUDs of the patients in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of intra-abdominal mislocated intrauterine devices by laparoscopy

Balcı

Çapar

Mahmoud

et al. 2011

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This retrospective study was carried out on 15 patients who underwent laparoscopy for the removal of a mislocated IUD from 2003 to 2009. The mean duration of usage of an IUD was 16.1 months. The IUD was found in the Pouch of Douglas in six patients; in the posterior wall of the uterus in three patients; in the adnexa in three patients; in the omentum in two patients and it was embedded in the rectal serosa in one patient. The types of the IUDs were TCu-380A (n = 13) and Mirena(®) (n = 2). The mean laparoscopic operation time was 25 min. No major complications occurred. A second ancillary port was required in three patients. All patients were discharged within 24 h. Laparoscopic removal of the intra-abdominal IUD must be the first choice of therapy. If possible, a single ancillary port should be preferred for the removal of mislocated IUDs. We advise that surgical removal and surgical risk should be discussed with the patients, even if asymptomatic.

show abstract

“…Midwives and practitioners perform this procedure aft er training and certifi cation (Caliskan et al 2003). Trained midwives inserted 12 of the IUDs of the patients in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of intra-abdominal mislocated intrauterine devices by laparoscopy

Balcı

Çapar

Mahmoud

et al. 2011

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Caliskan et al found that 50% of 18 perforations occurred in the posterior wall of an anteverted uterus or the anterior wall of a retroverted uterus 6. It is possible that relatively rigid introducer tubes may not follow the contour of an acutely anteflexed or retroflexed uterus and may lodge in the wall of a recently pregnant uterus, especially if the woman is breastfeeding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uterine perforation by intrauterine devices: a 16-year review

O’Brien

Pillai

2017

J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incidence rate is reported between 1.6 and 2.2 in 1000 2 3. Aberrant IUCDs can be identified using most imaging modalities, with US being the recommended first line investigation,4 in all women in whom the ‘strings’ cannot be visualised, followed by orthogonal plain film views as second line 5.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%