Complications of nexplanon contraceptive implants and reasons for discontinuation, in Yenagoa, Nigeria

Ikobho Ebenezer Howells; Okpara Abuchi Loveday; Ozori Ebiogbo Stanley; Atemie Gordon; Ogidigba Peter Ikorira; Onojoserio Oghenetega

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20250839

Authors

Ikobho Ebenezer Howells Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Niger Delta University Teaching Hospital, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria
Okpara Abuchi Loveday Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Federal Medical Center, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria
Ozori Ebiogbo Stanley Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Federal Medical Center, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria
Atemie Gordon Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Federal Medical Center, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria
Ogidigba Peter Ikorira Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Federal Medical Center, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria
Onojoserio Oghenetega Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Federal Medical Center, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20250839

Keywords:

Nexplanon, Complications, Implant removal

Abstract

Background: Though nexplanon is a safe and effective contraceptive implant, the complications are often troublesome to warrant removal. This study intends to determine the complications of nexplanon contraceptive implant, and the reasons for removal.

Methods: It was a retrospective cross-sectional study of 258 women, who used nexplanon contraceptive implants for a while and discontinued. Data collected was: bio-data, the duration of contraceptive use, rank of the inserter (nurse or resident doctor), rank of the remover, the complications experienced, and the reasons for implant removal.

Results: The mean duration of nexplanon use was 30.95±14.34 months, majority (96.1%) were inserted, and (82.2%) removed by trained nurses. Insertion by resident doctor significantly resulted in more complications than by trained nurses, odds ratio=5.10 [1.06, 24.51], p=0.02. The complication rate was 50%, and vaginal bleeding (25.2%) was the most common. Others are: headache (8.9%), pain at the injection site (3.9%), Weight gain (3.1%), amenorrhoea (1.6%), mood swing (1.6%), and breast pain (1.2%). Regarding contraceptive failure, the pearl index was low (0.06). Women who inserted once significantly had more complications than those who inserted twice, odds ratio=0.46 [0.22, 0.77], p=0.03. Women who used it for a period of ≤36 months significantly had more complications than those who used it for a longer period, odds ratio=0.53 [0.30, 0.92], p=0.02. The commonest reasons for removal were: expired implant (41.9%), desire to get pregnant (31.8%), and heavy vaginal bleeding (21.3%). The removal rate (secondary to complications) was 26.4%.

Conclusions: Nexplanon is an effective contraceptive implant with a very low failure rate. Irregular vaginal bleeding is the commonest complication, and the most common reason for discontinuation.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Rowlands S, Searle S. Contraceptive implants: current perspectives. Open Access J Contracept. 2014;5:73-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S55968

Fasubaa O. B. Contraceptive implants: A review and current perspective in southwest Nigeria. Trop J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;35:108-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/TJOG.TJOG_6_18

UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Implanon contraceptive implant: changing to Nexplanon. Drug Safety Update. 2010;4(3):A1.

Petro GA. Non-palpable and difficult contraceptive implant removals: The New Somerset Hospital referral-clinic experience. S Afr J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;23(3):101-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7196/sajog.1229

Rebecca HA, Kaunitz AM. Chapter 18 - Hormonal Contraception. Williams Textbook of Endocrinology (Thirteenth Edition). Editor(s): Melmed S, Polonsky KS, Larsen PR, Kronenberg HM. Elsevier. 2016;664-93.

Clinical Review Report: Etonogestrel Extended-Release Subdermal Implant (Nexplanon): Merck Canada Inc: Indication: For the Prevention of Pregnancy. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2020.

Rocca ML, Palumbo AR, Visconti F, Di CC. Safety and Benefits of Contraceptives Implants: A Systematic Review. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021;14(6):548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14060548

Angela R, Ziyue Z, Yan W, Bin Q, William S, Xiaoming X, et al. Manufacture, characterization, and elucidation of drug release mechanisms of etonogestrel implants based on ethylene vinyl acetate. J Pharm Sci. 2025;114(1):199-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2024.08.015

Suzanne R, Thai D. M, Jens A. L, Carol K, Michelle F, Klaas H. Real world data on Nexplanon® procedure-related events: final results from the Nexplanon Observational Risk Assessment study (NORA). Contraception 100. 2019;31-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2019.03.052

Mansour D, Mommers E, Teede H. Clinician satisfac¬tion and insertion characteristics of a new applicator to insert radiopaque Implanon: an open-label, noncontrolled, multicenter trial. Contraception. 2010;82(3):243-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.04.007

Nicolas D, Nidhi C, Jessica K. Etonogestrel implant effectiveness. Can Fam Physician. 2022;68:594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.6808594

Balogun OR, Adeniran AS, Adewole AA. Haematological and biochemical effects of etonogestrel subdermal implant (Implanon) in Ilorin Nigeria. Int J Health Sci. 2016;10(4):499-506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12816/0049656

Fischer MA. Implanon: A new contraceptive implant. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;37:361-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2008.00247.x

Moray KV, Chaurasia H, Sachin O. A systematic review on clinical effectiveness, side-effect profile and meta-analysis on continuation rate of etonogestrel contraceptive implant. Reprod Health. 2021;18:4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-020-01054-y

Organon.com. Nexplanon full prescribing information. 2018. Available at: http://www.merck. com/product/usa/pi_circulars/n/nexplanon/nexplanon_pi.pdf. Accessed on 24 January 2025.

Oranu EO, Ojule JD. Implanon Implant Contraception at the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital: A Periodic Review. AJMHS. 2018;11(1):1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/AJMAH/2018/40017

Fei YF, Smith YR, Dendrinos ML, Rosen MW, Quint EH. Considerations in Adolescent Use of the Etonogestrel Subdermal Implant: A Cohort Study. Front Reprod Health. 2012;3: DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2021.780902

Edelman A, Boniface E, Schrote K, Messerle-Forbes M, O'Donnell A, Jensen J. T, Han L. Treatment of unfavorable bleeding patterns in contraceptive implant users: a randomized clinical trial of curcumin. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;9(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.04.028

Rogers PAW. Endometrial vasculature in Norplant users. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(2):45-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/11.suppl_2.45

Torelli FR, Rodrigues-Peres RM, Monteiro I. Gene expression associated with unfavorable vaginal bleeding in women using the etonogestrel subdermal contraceptive implant: a prospective study. Sci Rep. 2024;14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61751-7

Batt CE, Sheeder J, Love-Osborne K. Weight Gain Patterns in Adolescent and Young Adult Women With the Etonogestrel Implant: Comparison by Weight Category. J Adolesc Health. 2021;69(5):815-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.04.018

Romano ME, Debora KB. Assessing Weight Status in Adolescent and Young Adult Users of the Etonogestrel Contraceptive Implant. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2019;32(4):409-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2019.03.008

Olumuyiwa RA, Adeyemi AO, Adeniran FO, Michael OA, Olatubosun AG. The effects of etonorgestrel implant (ImplanonR) on the lipid profile of Nigerian women. Trop J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;35:165-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/TJOG.TJOG_43_17

Turki A, Ayalew A, Mossie A. Effects of hormonal contraceptives on lipid profile among women attending family planning unit in Goba Town Public Health Facilities, Bale, Southeast Ethiopia: a comparative cross-sectional study. Reprod Health. 2023;20:185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-023-01727-4

Aaron L, Eva D, Margaret H, Christina LA, Jeanelle S, Stephanie T. An exploratory analysis on the influence of genetic variants on weight gain among etonogestrel contraceptive implant users. Contraception. 2020;102(3):180-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2020.05.002

Ramdhan RC, Simonds E, Wilson C, Loukas M, Oskouian RJ, Tubbs RS. Complications of Subcutaneous Contraception: A Review. Cureus. 2018;10(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2132

Ayogu ME, Eruemulor CC, Olibe AO. Uptake of hormonal implants contraceptives compared to other forms of contraceptives in Abuja, Nigeria. IJRMS. 2019;7(12):4557-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20195518

Karima AT. Subdermal contraceptive implants - a 10 year experience in Sokoto north western Nigeria. East Afr Med J. 2018; 95(7):1749-57.

Okolo NC, Okolo CA. Factors influencing the choice of family size amongst female health professionals in UDTH Sokoto. IJSSHR. 2013;4(1):159-66.

Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare of Nigeria (FMoHSW), National Population Commission (NPC) [Nigeria], and ICF. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. 2023-24.

Horacio BC, János U, Rebeca M, Herjan CB, Agaath VB, the Implanon Study Group. A multicentre efficacy and safety study of the single contraceptive implant Implanon. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(4):976-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.4.976

Heikinheimo O, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Emerging indications for the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:3-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01303.x