García-López BI, Pichardo-Cuevas M, Meza-López ME, Contreras-Carreto NA

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 7-9
PDF size: 162.63 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Intnroduction. The intrauterine device (IUD) is one of the most popular of contraceptive methods, be effective, safe and economical. The translocated IUD (TIUD) or in the wrong position usually occurs after an inadvertent perforation of the uterus at the time of placement or migration of it to adjacent tissues, may be located in endometrium, myometrium, abdominal cavity and organs. Objective. Describe the incidence and institutional experience in managing of TIUD. Material and methods. Retrospective, descriptive and analytical study of a sample of patients treated in the Women’s Hospital, Ministry of Health; México, D.F., with a diagnosis of TIUD during the period from 1st January 2008 to 1st January 2011. Results. Sample of 56 patients, average age 31.8 ± 8.55 years. TIUD 92.9% (n = 54) in uterine cavity and 7.1% (n = 4) in abdominal cavity. Retirement office failed in 26.8% (n = 15). Technique used: withdrawal Novak’s cannula 60.7% (n = 34), hysteroscopy 8.9% (n = 5), laparoscopy and hysteroscopy 5.4% (n = 3), LAPE 8.9% (n = 5), simple manual removal 10.7% (n = 6), hysteroscopy withdrawal by cannula’s Novak failed 3.6% (n = 2) and laparoscopy 1.8% (n = 1). Complications: uterine perforation 1.8% (n = 1), total hysterectomy by abdominal access 3.6% (n = 2). Conclusions. The diagnosis of TIUD can be performed by usual methods such as abdomen and pelvis x-ray and pelvic ultrasound. Rarely require additional studies. Hysteroscopy for removal TIUD is a safe and cost-effectiveness procedure and increasingly rare

REFERENCES

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

2. Alanís-Fuentes J, Amoroso-Hernández MA. Histeroscopia de consultorio para la extracción de dispositivo intrauterino. Revisión de la bibliografía. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2009; 77: 199-203.

3. Valle RF, Sciarra JJ. Hysteroscopy removal of intrauterine devices with missing filaments. Obstet Gynecol 1977; 49: 55-60.

4. Khrouf M, Slim N, Zouari F, Chelli H, Chelli M. Value of hysteroscopy in the removal of intrauterine devices lacking an examination string. Tunis Med 1985; 63: 475-7.

5. Ceballos GS, Sotelo VP. Caso inusual de un dispositivo intrauterino migrado a vejiga con cistolitiasis secundaria. Rev Mex Urol 2007; 67: 184-7.

6. Velásquez V, Nava V. Perforación de útero y yeyuno secundaria a dispositivo intrauterino. Reporte de un caso y revisión de la literatura. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2006; 74: 435-8.

7. Siegler AM, Valle RF. Therapeutic hysteroscopy procedures. Fertile Steril 1988; 50: 685-701.

8. Beedham T, Rao K. Giant vaginal stone with embedded contraceptive device. J R Soc Med 2001; 94: 522-3.

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

10. Onalan G, Mulayim B, Toprak T, Baser E, Zeyneloglu HB. Extrauterine displaced intrauterine devices: when should they be surgically removed? Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 48: 415-6.

11. Issacson K. Office hysteroscopy: a valuable but under-utilized technique (endoscopic surgery). Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002; 14: 381-5.

12. Turok DK, Gurtcheff SE, Gibson K, Handley E, Simonsen S, Murphy PA. Operative management of intrauterine device complications: a case series report. Contraception 2010; 82: 354-7.

13. Bettochi S, Nappi L, Ceci O, Selvaggi L. What does diagnostic hysteroscopy mean today? The role of the new techniques. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2003; 15: 303-8.