Rosales AE, González RMG

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 136-141
PDF size: 49.45 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: The search for options for contraception has always led to the development of increasingly effective methods and safe and, above all, varied for those with any contraindication to always find a viable alternative.
Objective: To know the sociodemography characteristics the users of implants liberating contraceptive of etonogestrel and the effects in the 24 following months to its application.
Material and methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was made in 207 users of implants liberating of etonogestrel during 24 months in the Aguascalientes Delegation of IMSS through a structured questionnaire. The Statístic Program v 7 for the capture, data processing and analysis of were used.
Results: The group of more frequent age was of 25 - 29 years; the majority had at least secondary, lived in the urban middle, were married and catholic; 48,6% were dedicated to the home; 1,2% of the pairs did not work; 82,6% had a weekly sex at least; 84,3% had 1 to 2 children; 66,3% wished more children; 95,9% of the pairs approved the method; 29:6 % referred a not planned previous pregnancy ; 72,1% used some contraceptive method previously; 36,6% referred bad experience with the previous method; 41,9% requested implants by comfort; 90:1 % received information of the method but only 73,8% knew the indirect effect; 86,6% would recommend it; 11,6% left the method by undesirable effects of which the main one was the irregular bled one, whereas 33,1% did not present/display any indirect effect and no patient became pregnant during the time of study.
Conclusions: It subdermal implant is a contraceptive alternative adapted by its effectiveness, its tolerance and the high rate of continuity, finding like basic characteristics of the users: young woman, with acceptable educative and economic level, low parity and desires of future fertility.

REFERENCES

1. Rosenfield A, Fathalla MF. Manual de Reproducción Humana. 2nd ed. New York: The Partenon Publishing Group, 1994;pp:173-89.

2. Rehan N, Inayatullh A, Chaudhary I. Efficacy and continuation rates of Norplant in Pakistan. Contraception 1999;60:39-43.

3. Sivin I, Mishell DR, Darey P, Wan L, Christ L. Levonorgestrel capsule implants in the United States: A 5-year study. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:337-44.

4. Kovalevsky G, Barnhart K. Norplant y otros anticonceptivos implantables. Clin Obst Gynecol 2001;1:85-92.

5. J. Huber. Pharmacokinetics of implanon: an integrated analysis, Contraception 1998;58(Suppl. 1): 85-90.

6. Zheng SR, Zheng HM, Qian SZ, Sang GW, Kaper RF. A randomized multicenter study comparing the effi cacy and bleeding pattern of a single-rod (Implanon) and a six-capsule (Norplant) hormonal contraceptive implant. Contraception 1999;60:1-8.

7. Darney PD. Hormonal implants. Contraception for a new century. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:1536-43.

8. Otero FB, Lozano BM, Cortés BM, Vázquez EL. Clinical experience and acceptability of the etonogestrel subdermal contraceptive implant. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2005;90:228-33.

9. Croxatto HB. Clinical profile of implanon: a single-rod etonogestrel contraceptive implant. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2000;5(Suppl. 2):21-28.

10. Graesslin O, Korver T. The contraceptive efficacy of Implanon: a review of clinical trials and marketing experience. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008;13(Suppl. 1):4-12.

11. Blumenthal PD, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Marintcheva-Petrova M. Tolerability and clinical safety of Implanon. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008;13(Suppl. 1):29-36.

12. Rosales AE, Felguérez FA. Impacto sociodemográfico de 15 años de planificación familiar. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2005;73:443-50.