Contraception · 2010
Immediate placement of intrauterine devices after first and second trimester pregnancy termination.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Fox Michelle C, Oat-Judge Julia, Severson Kathryn, Jamshidi Roxanne M, Singh Rameet H, McDonald-Mosley Raegan, Burke Anne E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We reviewed our experience with intrauterine device (IUD) placement after surgical abortion up to 20 weeks' gestation.
STUDY DESIGN: Women presenting for elective abortion between January 2004 and March 2009 who requested an IUD were included in this retrospective review.
RESULTS: Of 308 women requesting postabortion IUD placement, 221 (72%) planned insertion at the time of abortion (immediate group) and 87 (28%) planned insertion at their postoperative visit (interval group). IUDs were placed in 96% of the immediate group and in 23% of the interval group (212/221 vs. 20/87; p<.0001). Failure to return for placement was the most common reason for noninsertion in the interval group (60/87=69%). Follow-up information was obtained for 56% of patients and was documented a median of 137 days postabortion (range 3-1594 days). There was no difference in complication rates between groups. Expulsion rates were 3% and 0% in the immediate and interval groups, respectively (6/212 vs. 0/20; p=.4). Considering only those with documented follow-up after immediate insertion (119), there was a nonsignificant trend towards increased expulsion with placement after second vs. first trimester abortion (4/54=7% vs. 2/65=2%; p=.3). When analyzing the 172 subjects with documented follow-up, those planning immediate insertion were more likely to have an IUD in situ at the last contact than those planning later insertion (84/124=68% vs. 20/48=42%; p=.002).
CONCLUSION: Immediate postabortion IUD insertion is safe and effective. Given the low rate of return for interval insertion, immediate placement may be preferable.
STUDY DESIGN: Women presenting for elective abortion between January 2004 and March 2009 who requested an IUD were included in this retrospective review.
RESULTS: Of 308 women requesting postabortion IUD placement, 221 (72%) planned insertion at the time of abortion (immediate group) and 87 (28%) planned insertion at their postoperative visit (interval group). IUDs were placed in 96% of the immediate group and in 23% of the interval group (212/221 vs. 20/87; p<.0001). Failure to return for placement was the most common reason for noninsertion in the interval group (60/87=69%). Follow-up information was obtained for 56% of patients and was documented a median of 137 days postabortion (range 3-1594 days). There was no difference in complication rates between groups. Expulsion rates were 3% and 0% in the immediate and interval groups, respectively (6/212 vs. 0/20; p=.4). Considering only those with documented follow-up after immediate insertion (119), there was a nonsignificant trend towards increased expulsion with placement after second vs. first trimester abortion (4/54=7% vs. 2/65=2%; p=.3). When analyzing the 172 subjects with documented follow-up, those planning immediate insertion were more likely to have an IUD in situ at the last contact than those planning later insertion (84/124=68% vs. 20/48=42%; p=.002).
CONCLUSION: Immediate postabortion IUD insertion is safe and effective. Given the low rate of return for interval insertion, immediate placement may be preferable.