The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care : the official journal of the European Society of Contraception · 2004
Transuterine migration as a complication of intrauterine contraceptive devices: six case reports.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tunçay Y A, Tunçay E, Güzin K, Oztürk D, Omurcan C, Yücel N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We retrospectively analyzed six cases between 1986 and 2002 that had been operated within our unit with the diagnosis of migration of an intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD). Although an IUD is an effective contraceptive method, the migration of one is a rare but serious complication. The aim of this report is to emphasize the management and therapy of this complication.
CASES: Out of six patients, three patients with occurring pregnancy, two with pelvic pain and one with a missing IUD incidentally diagnosed during a routine follow-up gynecological examination, were admitted to our clinic. The diagnosis of perforation and transuterine migration of the IUD was confirmed with a plain abdominal X-ray with a hysterometer placed in the uterus, hysterosalpingography and ultrasound. One patient was diagnosed as having a perforated rectosigmoid bowel intraoperatively and one presented with perforation of the bladder. In the remaining four cases, the IUD only migrated into the abdominal cavity without any organ perforations. One IUD was extracted laparoscopically, one was removed through the vagina by colpotomy and, in the other four cases, a laparotomy had to be performed. Patients were discharged without any complications.
CONCLUSION: The most serious potential complication of IUD use is uterine perforation and this can cause severe morbidity. When an IUD is located in the abdominal cavity, it should be carefully managed and removed, even in an asymptomatic patient.
CASES: Out of six patients, three patients with occurring pregnancy, two with pelvic pain and one with a missing IUD incidentally diagnosed during a routine follow-up gynecological examination, were admitted to our clinic. The diagnosis of perforation and transuterine migration of the IUD was confirmed with a plain abdominal X-ray with a hysterometer placed in the uterus, hysterosalpingography and ultrasound. One patient was diagnosed as having a perforated rectosigmoid bowel intraoperatively and one presented with perforation of the bladder. In the remaining four cases, the IUD only migrated into the abdominal cavity without any organ perforations. One IUD was extracted laparoscopically, one was removed through the vagina by colpotomy and, in the other four cases, a laparotomy had to be performed. Patients were discharged without any complications.
CONCLUSION: The most serious potential complication of IUD use is uterine perforation and this can cause severe morbidity. When an IUD is located in the abdominal cavity, it should be carefully managed and removed, even in an asymptomatic patient.