Transmigration of intrauterine contraceptive devices: embedded in urinary bladder wall in pregnant woman

Authors

  • Prajna K. Mavintop Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, S. D. M. Medical College, Dharwad, Karnataka, India
  • Ramesh Kumar Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, S. D. M. Medical College, Dharwad, Karnataka, India
  • Sneha G. S. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, S. D. M. Medical College, Dharwad, Karnataka, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20221955

Keywords:

Intrauterine device migration, Urinary bladder, Laparotomy

Abstract

Globally, 14% of reproductive aged women use intrauterine contraception. The five intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUCDs) currently approved are chemically active and continually elute either copper or levonorgestrel. Uterine perforation is most serious and rare complication which can be acute or chronic in nature. Although uncommon, uterine embedment and perforation can occur. We report case of transmigration of intrauterine contraceptive device into the urinary bladder wall perforating the uterine wall in 25-year-old gravid female. She was subjected to ultrasound abdomen and pelvis which unveiled the diagnosis of migrated copper-T. Under spinal anaesthesia, laparotomy was done and IUCD was removed.

Author Biographies

Prajna K. Mavintop, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, S. D. M. Medical College, Dharwad, Karnataka, India

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Ramesh Kumar, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, S. D. M. Medical College, Dharwad, Karnataka, India

Professor

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SDM,Dharwad

Sneha G. S., Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, S. D. M. Medical College, Dharwad, Karnataka, India

Assistant Professor

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SDM,Dharwad

References

Harrison-Woolrych M, Ashton J, Coulter D. Uterine perforation on intrauterine device insertion: Is the incidence higher than previously reported? Contraception. 2003;67:53-6.

Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Do Minh T. Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices. Contraception. 2015;91(4):274-9.

Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, Lähteenmäki P, Heikinheimo O. Intrauterine contraception: Incidence and factors associated with uterine perforationa population-based study. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2658-63.

Kho KA, Chamsy DJ. Perforated Intraperitoneal Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices: Diagnosis, Management, and Clinical Outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):596-601.

Sano M, Nemoto K, Miura T, Suzuki Y. Endoscopic Treatment of Intrauterine Device Migration into the Bladder with Stone Formation. J Endourol Case Rep. 2017;3(1):105.

Zeino MY, Wietfeldt ED, Advani V, Ahad S, Younkin C, Hassan I. Laparoscopic removal of a copper intrauterine device from the sigmoid colon. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2011;15(4):568-70.

Rowlands S, Oloto E, Horwell D. Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: current perspectives. Open Access J Contracept. 2016;7:19-32.

Esposito JM, Zarou DM, Zarou GS. A Dalkon Shield imbedded in a myoma: Case report of an unusual displacement of an intrauterine contraceptive device. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973;117:578-81.

Zakin D, Stern WZ, Rosenblatt R. Complete and partial uterine perforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterine devices. I. classification, complications, mechanism, incidence, and missing string. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1981;36(7):335-53.

Mederos R, Humaran L, Minervini D. Surgical removal of an intrauterine device perforating the sigmoid colon: A case report. Int J Surg. 2008;6(6):60-2.

Downloads

Published

2022-07-27

Issue

Section

Case Reports