medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Perinatología y Reproducción Humana

ISSN 0187-5337 (Print)
Instituto Nacional de Perinatología
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2012, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Perinatol Reprod Hum 2012; 26 (2)

Resolución laparoscópica de translocación abdominal de dispositivo intrauterino. Reporte de un caso

Herrera-Meillón H, Armenta-Aguilera SE, Muñoz-Jiménez G, Haghenbeck-Altamirano FJ, Ayala-Yáñez R
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 129-132
PDF size: 233.23 Kb.


Key words:

Copper intrauterine devices, intrauterine devices medicated, intrauterine device migration, laparoscopy.

ABSTRACT

Since Richter R. in 1909 performed the first publication on the use of intrauterine devices; materials, forms, indications and contraindications of these have evolved to become the method most widely used family planning in the world. Although the risk of perforation during insertion is low, it exists. The literature has described the use of laparoscopy for removal of intrauterine devices migrated to the abdominal cavity. Case report: 29 years old woman who two years before suffers colic pain posterior to application of an intrauterine device with no complications, and diminishes with the use of unspecified analgesics, and stays asymptomatic to date. She attended a review, and underwent to cervical cytology, during the procedure, was impossible to see the strings of the intrauterine device. Plain abdominal radiography and fluoroscopy were done to determine the location of the radiopaque intraabdominal witness. Assessed by the General Surgery Service we determined extraction of the device by laparoscopy and was done without any complication. Findings: strong omentum adhesions to the device, but no apparent damage to other abdominal organs. The World Health Organization recommends the immediate removal of intrauterine devices that have migrated. The migration of the intrauterine devices into the abdominal cavity is a rare complication, and the presentation as an incidental finding in asymptomatic patients is even less common, a systematic review of literature, Richdeep S. et al, evaluated 49 items found 179 cases of laparoscopic management reporting the omentum as the most common site of localization (26.7%). The relevance of this case lies in the asyntomatic presentation two years after insertion, the diagnostic route using radiographs and fluoroscopy, and extraction without complications and with excellent results laparoscopically.


REFERENCES

  1. Richter R. Ein mittel zur verhueturng der konzeption. Deutsch Med Wschr 1909; 35: 1525–27.

  2. Margulies L. History of intrauterine devices. Bull N Y Acad Med 1975; 51: 662-7.

  3. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Intrauterine devices and intrauterine systems. Hum Reprod Update 2008; 14: 197-208.

  4. WHO. Mechanism of action, safety, and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1987; 753: 1-91.

  5. Balci O, Mahmoud AS, Capar M, Colakoglu MC. Diagnosis and management of intra-abdominal, mislocated intrauterine devices. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010; 281: 1019-22.

  6. Grimes DA, López LM, Schulz KF, Stanwood NL. Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices [monograph on the Internet]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 6:CD001777. The Cochrane Library; 2010. Avilable from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001777.pub3/abstract

  7. Brar R, Doddi S, Ramasamy A, Sinha P. A forgotten migrated intrauterine contraceptive device is not always innocent: a case report. Case Report Med [serial on the Internet]. 2010; 2010. [about 3 p.]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938829/?tool=pubmed

  8. Gill RS, Mok D, Hudson M, Shi X, Birch DW, Karmali S. Laparoscopic removal of an intra-abdominal intrauterine device: case and systematic review. Contraception 2012; 85: 15-18.

  9. Kurdoglu Z, Ceylan K, Kurdoglu M, Guler A, Sahin HG. Ectopic intrauterine device in the bladder of a pregnant woman. Case Report Med [serial on the Internet]. 2010 Aug (2); 2010. [about 3 p.]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929505/?tool=pubmed

  10. Taras AR, Kaufman JA. Laparoscopic retrieval of intrauterine device perforating the sigmoid colon. JSLS 2010; 14: 453-5.

  11. Bozkurt M, Yumru AE, Coskun EI, Ondes B. Laparoscopic management of a translocated Intrauterine device embedded in the gastric serosa. J Pak Med Assoc 2011; 61: 1020-22.

  12. Markovitch O, Klein Z, Gidoni Y, Holzinger M, Beyth Y. Extrauterine mislocated IUD: is surgical removal mandatory? Contraception 2002; 66: 105-8.

  13. Erian M, McLaren G, Baartz D. The wandering Mirena: laparoscopic retrieval. JSLS 2011; 15: 127-30.

  14. Vásquez P, Schreiber CA. The missing IUD. Contraception 2010; 82: 126-28.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Perinatol Reprod Hum. 2012;26