Migration of intrauterine device into the pelvic cavity: exploration strategy and management in African environment

Abdoul Aziz Diouf; Moussa Diallo; Omar Gassama; Mouhamadou Mansour Niang; Mariétou Thiam; Mamour Gueye; Magatte Mbaye; Jean Charles Moreau; Bruno Van Herendael; Alassane Diouf

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20170419

Authors

Abdoul Aziz Diouf Université Cheikh Anta DIOP de Dakar
Moussa Diallo Université Cheikh Anta DIOP de Dakar
Omar Gassama Université Cheikh Anta DIOP de Dakar
Mouhamadou Mansour Niang Université Cheikh Anta DIOP de Dakar
Mariétou Thiam UFR Santé de Thiès
Mamour Gueye Université Cheikh Anta DIOP de Dakar
Magatte Mbaye Université Cheikh Anta DIOP de Dakar
Jean Charles Moreau Université Cheikh Anta DIOP de Dakar
Bruno Van Herendael ZNA Stuivenberg Lange Beeldekensstraat, 267, 2060 Antwerpen
Alassane Diouf Université Cheikh Anta DIOP de Dakar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20170419

Keywords:

Contraception, Complications, Intrauterine device, Laparoscopy

Abstract

IUD migration is a rare complication. We report our experience in the treatment of five cases of uterine perforation and migration of IUDs. The average age of patients was 34.6 years, an average parity was 4. All patients felt an unusual pain during insertion of the IUD Tcu 380A. The location of the IUD was done through ultrasound and hysterography. Removal by laparoscopy was performed in all cases. The immediate impacts of the surgery were simple. Hysterography has its place in the location of the migrated IUD. Prevention is a good IUD insertion technique.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

WHO. Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Geneva: World Health Organization. 1987 p48-69.

Agence nationale de la statistique et de la démographie (ANSD) Dakar. Enquêtes démographiques et de santé à indicateurs multiples (EDS-MICS) 2010-2011: Rapport final. Calverton, 2010.

Andersson K, Ryde-Blomqvist E, Lindell K, Odlind V, Milsom I. Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey. Contraception. 1998;57(4):251-5.

Deshmukh S, Ghanouno P, Jeffrey RB. Early sonographic diagnosis of intrauterine device migration to the adnexa. J Clin Ultrasound. 2009;37(7):414-6.

Nohuz E et al. Un stérilet qui fait de plus en plus mal. où il ne suffit pas d’en voir les fils pour exclure une malposition! Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2014;42(4):261-4.

Ech-Cherif El Kettani N, Dafiri R. Migration of intra uterine devises: role of imaging. Feuillets de Radiologie. 2007;47(3):159-66.

Bennis H et al. Migration transutérine des dispositifs intra-utérins. Rev Med Liège 2011;66(3):153-8.

Intra-uterine device’s migration (DIU) with subsequent pelvic peritonitis in a 64 years old patient. Imagerie de la Femme. 2009;19(1):56-8.

Delotte J, Trastour C, Bafghi A, Iannelli A, Bongain A. Un motif de consultation surprenant: la perception de fils sortant par l’anus. À propos d’une complication rare de la pose de DIU. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2006;35(8):820-821.

Boyon G, Giraudet G, Guérin du Masgenêt B, Lucot JP, Goeusse P, Vinatier D. Diagnosis and management of uterine perforations after intrauterine device insertion: a report of 11 cases. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2013;41(5):314-21.

International Planned Parenthood (IPPF). International medical advasory panel meetings (IMAP). Statement on intrauterine devices (IUDs). IPPF Med Bull. 1987;21(6):3-5.