Uterine perforation in a 27-year-old woman, a rare complication of copper intra-uterine device: a case report
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20251589Keywords:
Copper intra-uterine device, Contraception, Perforation, UterusAbstract
Uterine perforation by copper intra-uterine device (IUD) though rare presents as a management challenge to the clinician. A 27-year-old woman of African descent presented with missing strings of a copper IUD that was inserted 2 weeks ago. Ultrasonography (USG) showed device outside the uterus. The initially planned laparoscopic removal at a teaching hospital was unsuccessful due to diagnostic challenges. Copper IUD was successfully removed by laparotomy under USG guidance. Copper IUD is a safe and effective method of contraception. Uterine perforation is a rare complication. Early identification, counselling and prompt removal are necessary to avert further complications.
Metrics
References
Iklaki C, Agbakwuru A, Udo AE, Abeshi S. Five-year review of copper T intrauterine device use at the University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar. Open Access J Contracept. 2015;143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S82176
Akintomide H, James A, Moffat M, Barnes P, Rankin J. Systematic review of copper intrauterine contraception continuation in young nulliparous women based on intrauterine device type. BMJ Open. 2022;12(10):1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060606
Bunting JJM, Leung ZCL, Boboc B, Betts DH, Gilroy JB, Oinonen K, et al. Revolutionizing Women’s health: the quest for materials for next-generation, non-hormonal intrauterine devices. NPJ Women’s Heal. 2024;2(1):1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44294-024-00026-y
Kaneshiro B, Aeby T. Long-term safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of the intrauterine Copper T-380A contraceptive device. Int J Womens Health. 2010;2(1):211-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S6914
Fassett MJ, Reed SD, Rothman KJ, Pisa F, Schoendorf J, Wahdan Y, et al. Risks of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion Associated With Intrauterine Devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;142(3):641-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005299
Tabatabaei F, Masoumzadeh M. Dislocated intrauterine devices: clinical presentations, diagnosis and management. Eur J Contracept Reprod Heal Care. 2021;26(2):160-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2021.1874337
Rowlands S, Oloto E, Horwell D. Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: current perspectives. Open Access J Contracept. 2016;7:19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S85546
Roman JD. Uterine Perforation by Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine Device: A Case Report. Cureus. 2022;14(11):12-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31398
Tabatabaei F, Hosseini STN, Hakimi P, Vejdani R, Khademi B. Risk factors of uterine perforation when using contraceptive intrauterine devices. BMC Womens Health. 2024;24(1):538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03298-3
Quevedo M. Intrauterine Device Perforation. J Diagnostic Med Sonogr. 2016;32(4):207-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/8756479316645538
Wahba A, Belal D, Fouad R. Perforated Intrauterine Contraceptive Device: Single Institution Experience. Egypt J Fertil Steril. 2023;27(4):10-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/egyfs.2023.317674
Cavallaro FL, Benova L, Owolabi OO, Ali M. A systematic review of the effectiveness of counselling strategies for modern contraceptive methods: what works and what doesn’t? BMJ Sex Reprod Heal. 2020;46(4):254-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200377