DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20193552

Evaluation of post partum intrauterine contraceptive device versus interval intrauterine contraceptive device insertion

Hiral P. Godhani, Dhaval K. Patel

Abstract


Background: Family planning is important not only for population stabilization, but it has been increasingly recognized as central tool to improve maternal and neonatal health. Aim of current study was to compare interval and post partum intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) insertion in terms of effectiveness and safety.

Methods: This was a prospective observational cohort study, done in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GMERS Medical College, Sola, Ahmedabad, from August 2015 to April 2017 was taken for evaluation. 80 women in each group who were inserted IUCD after delivery and in the interval period were studied. Outcome was measured by expulsion rate, continuation rate, and incidence of dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB), Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), failure rate and effect on puerperium.

Results: Expulsion rate in PPIUCD group was 8.75% while in interval IUCD group it was 1.25%. Continuation rate following Postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device (PPIUCD) and interval IUCD insertion was 86.25% and 95% respectively. Incidence of bleeding per vaginum (menorrhagia) was 7.5% in PPIUCD group while 8.75% in interval IUCD group. There was one case 1.25% of PID in interval IUCD group while no case in PPIUCD was noted. Failure rate was nil in both the group. There was no effect on puerperium following PPIUCD insertion group during present study.

Conclusions: PPIUCD is an effective and safe spacing method of contraception as compared to interval IUCD insertion. There is no statistically significant change in incidence of expulsion rate, continuation rate and other complications in both the group.


Keywords


Continuation rate, Expulsion Rate, Failure rate, Incidence of DUB, Interval IUCD, PID, PPIUCD

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ram F, Ladusingh L, Paswan B. IUCD Reference Manual for Medical Officers and Nursing Personnel, /IIPS, Mumbai, DLHS-3(2007-2008)/Sep 3, 2013.

Shukla M, Qureshi S, Chandrawati. Post-placental intrauterine device insertion - a five year experience at a tertiary care centre in north India Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, KG Medical University, Lucknow, India Indian J Med Res. 2012;136(3):432-5.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, PPIUCD Reference Manual, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, 2010;1-4.

Stanwood NL, Garrett JM, Konrad TR. Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:275.

Grimes DA, Lopez LM, Schulz KF, Van Vliet HAAM, Stanwood NL. Immediate post-partum insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(5):CD003036.

Srivastava S, Bano I. Evaluation of PPIUCD versus Interval IUCD Insertion, Acceptability of PPIUCD versus Interval IUCD Insertion. IJSR. 2016.

Singh U, Sonkar S. Comparative evaluation of postpartum IUCD versus interval IUCD Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6(4):1534-8.

Mishra N, Dalal N, Joshi V. Intrauterine device insertion during caesarean section- a boon for rural women. IOSR-JDMS. 2013;8(3):21-3.

Gupta A, Verma A, Chauhan J. Evaluation of PPIUCD versus interval IUCD (380) insertion in a teaching hospital of Western U.P. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2013;2(2):204-20.

Lucksom. Comparative study of interval versus postpartum Cu-T insertion in a central referral hospital of North East India Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2015;4(1):47-51.

Mohan H, Ramappa R, Sandesh M, Akash BK. PPIUCD versus interval IUCD (380a) insertion: a comparative study in a referral hospital of Karnataka, India. Int J Repro Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2015;4(6):1730-2.