Expulsions following 1000 GyneFix insertions

Dennis, Joanne; Webb, A K; Kishen, Meera

doi:10.1783/147118901101195533

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early expulsions may be related to inadequate insertion technique resulting in insufficiently deep implantation. The reason for late expulsions is unclear 6 . Patient B remains adamant to have another Gynefix 1 inserted for contraception despite being informed of the risk of further expulsions with IUDs and being advised to use other methods of contraception.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gynefix® tales: cervical perforation and repeated late expulsion with the Gynefix® device

Oswal¹,

Oswal

Loizides

et al. 2008

The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe two unusual cases; both patients wish to continue using the Gynefix despite experiencing difficulty with the device. In case A, the marker string of the Gynefix(R) perforated the full thickness of the cervix and was visualized on the left lateral aspect of the cervix. Three months later the string had moved again and could no longer be visualized, but an ultrasound scan confirmed fundal implantation of the device. Case B demonstrates repeated late expulsion and failure of implantation of Gynefix. Appropriateness of ultrasound with reference to measurement of the distance SS (between the peritoneal surface of the uterine fundus and the first copper sleeve of the Gynefix), failure of implantation and problems with the new Gynefix introducer are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gynefix® tales: cervical perforation and repeated late expulsion with the Gynefix® device

Oswal¹,

Oswal

Loizides

et al. 2008

The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Expulsion is uncommon if the proper technique of insertion is applied: its frequency in clinical studies amounts to 3.0% after 3 years 4 and 1.91% at 9 years of follow-up 5 . However, in routine medical practice higher expulsion rates were found, especially in surveys in England (UK) 6,7 . GyneFix 1 330 is an excellent rival to other devices in many respects.…”

Section: Flexible Devicesmentioning

confidence: 97%

State-of-the-art of intrauterine contraception

Batar

2006

The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its nearly 100-year history, intrauterine contraception is a modern method even in the 21st century and its development is still going on. The aim of innovations is to optimize the contraceptive efficacy and to suppress as much as possible side effects and unwanted events (e.g. menstrual irregularities, expulsion). It is important that this method be made available to all those who could not resort to it earlier (young women, nulligravidae, nulliparae). Currently three areas are more particularly being investigated: (1) flexible, frameless intrauterine implants, (2) levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems, and (3) metal alloy intrauterine devices. Partly relying on the author's own clinical experience and based on the literature of recent years, this article reviews the present state and possibilities with regard to further development of intrauterine contraceptive devices.

show abstract

“…Most expulsions (about 60%) occurred within the first 3 months of insertion, and were said by the authors to be related to "poor" insertion technique 8. Around 37% of insertions were performed by clinicians inexperienced at fitting the device, each having inserted less than 10 devices prior to the study.…”

Section: Clinical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In two uncontrolled studies, involving a total of 1,200 nulliparous and parous women fitted with GyneFix in specialist centres in the UK, the device was expelled by around 8% of women during the following 28 months 8 , 9. Most expulsions (about 60%) occurred within the first 3 months of insertion, and were said by the authors to be related to "poor" insertion technique 8.…”

Section: Clinical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Frameless intra-uterine contraceptive device

2002

DTB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern copper-containing contraceptive intra-uterine devices (IUDs) typically comprise a solid plastic frame loaded with copper wire and/or copper sleeves. Although they are very effective (annual pregnancy rates generally below 1%), some women discontinue their use within a year after insertion because of excessive bleeding and/or painful periods (4-15%), or because the device has been spontaneously expelled (2-8%).1 GyneFix (Contrel) is a new IUD approved for up to 5 years of use. Its manufacturer claims that the device produces fewer unwanted effects, and is less likely to be expelled, than conventional IUDs because it does not have a plastic frame (a frameless device). Here we assess these claims.

show abstract

Expulsions following 1000 GyneFix insertions

Cited by 18 publications

References 9 publications

Gynefix® tales: cervical perforation and repeated late expulsion with the Gynefix® device

Gynefix® tales: cervical perforation and repeated late expulsion with the Gynefix® device

State-of-the-art of intrauterine contraception

Frameless intra-uterine contraceptive device

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About