A prospective observational study conducted in tertiary teaching hospital of Uttar Pradesh to compare safety and efficacy of PPIUCD and interval IUCD (380A)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20185442Keywords:
Acceptance, Interval IUCD, PPIUCD, SafetyAbstract
Background: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of PPIUCD and interval IUCD.
Methods: This was a prospective observational study conducted on women attending the OPD and indoor services of S.N. Medical college, Agra. 800 women willing for PPIUCD insertion were included in the study after informed consent excluding chorioamnionitis, PROM>18 hours, unresolved PPH and puerperal sepsis. Another 200 willing women were inserted interval IUCD according to MEC criteria of WHO. All were followed up for 1 year.
Results: It was found that rate of expulsion was more in PPIUCD group compared to interval IUCD group (6%vs 1.5% p value <.05),rate of removal was almost similar in both groups (11.5%inPPIUCD and 14%in interval IUCD group), cause of removal was mainly social in PPIUCD group while bleeding was more in interval IUCD group compared to PPIUCD (85.7%vs26%).
Conclusions: Postpartum insertion of IUCD is a safe effective, feasible and reversible method of contraception.
Metrics
References
World Health Organization (WHO) Report of a technical consultation on birth spacing. Geneva Switzerland. .World Health Organization (WHO) (2005)
Hayes JL, Cwiak C, Goedken P, Zieman M. A pilot clinical trial of ultrasound‐guided postplacental insertion of a l evonorgestrel intrauterine device. Contracep. 2007;76(4):292‐6.
National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) 2005-06 IIPS(International Institute for Population Sciences) Mumbai; India (2007)
World Health Organization (WHO) Programing stratigies for post –partum family planning. WHO Geneva C (2013).
Gupta A, Verma A, Chauhan J. Evaluation of PPIUCD versus interval IUCD (380A) insertion in a teaching hospital of Western U. P. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2013;2(2):204-8.
Katheit G, Agarwal J. Evaluation of post-placental intrauterine device (PPIUCD) in terms of awareness, acceptance, and expulsion in a tertiary care centre. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2013;2(4):539-43.
Mülller ALL, Ramos JGL, Martins-Costa SH, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonographic assessment of the expulsion rate of intrauterine devices inserted in the immediate postpartum period: a pilot study. Contracep. 2005;72(3):192-5.
López‐Farfan J, Martinez MM, Machorro IV. P729 Application of Mirena® during caesarean section (CS). Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;107(S2).
Bonilla Rosales F, Aguilar Zamudio ME, Cazares Montero ML, Hernandez Ortiz ME, Luna Ruiz MA. Factors for expulsion of intrauterine device TCu380A applied immediately postpartum and after a delayed period. Rev Méd Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2005;43(1):5-10.
Celen S, Möröy P, Sucak A, Aktulay A, Danişman N. Clinical outcomes of early postplacental insertion of intrauterine contraceptive devices. Contracep. 2004;69(4):279‐82.
El Beltagy NS, Darwish EA, Kasem MS, Hefila NM. Comparison between Cupper T380 IUD and Multiload 375 IUD in early post-partum insertion. Middle East Fertility Society J. 2011;16(2):143-8.
El-Shafei MM, Mashali A, Hassan EO, El-Boghdadi L, El-Lakkany N. Postpartum and postabortion intrauterine device insertion unmet needs of safe reproductive health: three years’ experience of Mansoura University Hospital. Egyptian Society Obstet Gynecol. 2000;26(1-3):253-62.
Ricalde RL, Tobías GM, Pérez CR, Ramirez NV. A randomized comparative study between the Cu375 and TCu 380A Multiload intrauterine devices placed during the postpartum period. Gynecol Obstet Mex 2006;74:306‐11
Eroğlu K, Akkuzu G, Vural G, Dilbaz B, Akın A, Taşkın L, et al. Comparison of efficacy and complications of IUD insertion in immediate postplacental/early postpartum period with interval period: 1-year follow-up. Contracept. 2006;74(5):376-81.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
