Silent uterine perforation and omental embedding of a Mirena® intrauterine device in a postpartum patient with undiagnosed uterine anomaly: a case report
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20251593Keywords:
Contraceptive complications, Intrauterine device, Mirena®, Uterine perforation, Subseptate uterusAbstract
Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems (LNG-IUS) are commonly used for long-acting reversible contraception. While generally safe and effective, they carry a rare but serious risk of uterine perforation, particularly in the presence of risk factors like recent childbirth, breastfeeding or congenital uterine anomalies. We present the case of a 35-year-old, gravida 5 para 3, female who presented with chronic abdominal pain and missing intrauterine device threads ten months after postpartum Mirena® insertion. Transvaginal ultrasound failed to visualise the device. A pelvic X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scan confirmed extrauterine migration, with the intrauterine device (IUD) embedded in the omentum. Laparoscopy revealed a scar on the posterior uterine wall suggestive of silent uterine perforation, and hysteroscopy demonstrated a subseptate uterus. The device was successfully removed laparoscopically. This case emphasises the importance of anatomical screening prior to IUD insertion, the need for post-insertion imaging, and timely investigation of symptoms. It highlights how silent uterine perforation and subsequent delayed diagnosis of IUD-related complications can be avoided through adherence to established clinical guidelines, such as those provided by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH) recommendations.
Metrics
References
Bingham AL, Garrett CC, Bayly C, Kavanagh AM, Keogh LA, Bentley RJ, et al. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device in Australia: analysis of prescribing data 2008-2012. BMC Womens Health. 2018;18(1):194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0680-3
Gemzell‐Danielsson K, Kubba A, Caetano C, Faustmann T, Lukkari‐Lax E, Heikinheimo O. Thirty years of mirena: A story of innovation and change in women’s healthcare. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2021;100:614-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14110
Zakin D, Stern WZ, Rosenblatt R. Complete and partial uterine perforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterine deives. I. Classification, complications, mechanism, incidence, and missing string. Obstet Gynecol Survey. 1981;36:335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-198107000-00001
Rowlands S, Oloto E, Horwell DH. Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: current perspectives. Open Access J Contracept. 2016;7:19-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S85546
Pang L-H, Li M-J, Li M, Xu H, Wei Z-L. Not every subseptate uterus requires surgical correction to reduce poor reproductive outcome. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2011;115:260-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.07.030
Reed SD, Zhou X, Ichikawa L, Gatz JL, Peipert JF, Armstrong MA, et al; APEX-IUD study team. Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study. Lancet. 2022;399(10341):2103-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00015-0
Tepper NK, Zapata LB, Jamieson DJ, Curtis KM. Use of intrauterine devices in women with uterine anatomic abnormalities. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2010;109:52-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.10.022