A prospective study of safety, efficacy and acceptability of postpartum insertion of intrauterine contraceptive device in a tertiary care hospital in Maharashtra, India


  • Nandkishor B. Gaikwad Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Miraj, Maharashtra, India
  • Poornima M. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Miraj, Maharashtra, India
  • Atul Lipare Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Miraj, Maharashtra, India




Contraception, Efficacy, Postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device, Primigravida


Background: IUCD (intrauterine contraceptive device) to prevent pregnancy are among the oldest method of contraception. The modern IUCD are highly effective, safe private, long acting and rapidly reversible contraceptive method. Aims and objective of this study was to study the acceptability and safety of postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device (PPIUCD) in postpartum period and to assess the feasibility, safety, efficacy and expulsion rate of IUCD.

Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted at tertiary care teaching hospital in Maharashtra from January 2018 to October 2018 and patients were followed up to a period of one-year post IUCD insertion.

Results: Majority of patients in this study were in age group 21 to 26 years of age (58.7%) and the least number were in the age group more than 30 years (3.3%). This study showed that majority of patients were primigravida (44%) and the lowest number belonged to gravida 6 (0.3%). Regarding timing of IUCD insertion 73% were done intra caesarean, 22.3% were done post placental and 4.7% were done within 48 hours of delivery. In this study authors found that 4% of patients had per vaginal discharge, 5% had missing IUCD thread and 2% of patients had IUCD expulsion. It was found in this study that 98% of patients continued to use IUCD and only 2% discontinued the usage.

Conclusions: From the study authors came to conclusion that PPIUCD insertion is a safe, feasible, effective and reversible method of contraception.


Majhi AK. Importance of PPIUCD in perspective of present Indian population scenario. Indian J Perinatol Reprod Biol. 2012;2(2):5-7.

IUCD reference manual for medical officers, Family Planning Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 2007;1:1-20.

Postpartum IUCD reference manual by family planning division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2010:2-6.

Salem R. New attention to IUD: Expanding women’s contraceptive option to meet their needs: population report: series B, no. 7, John Hopkins Boomberg school for public health, the INFO project, Baltimore; 2006:1-26.

Mmule VD, Rhokade JV. Study the efficacy and compliance of postpartum intra uterine device. Medpulse Int J Gynaecol. 2017;3(2):91-5.

Kittur S, Kabadi YM. Enhancing contraceptive usage by postplacental intrauterine contraceptive device insertion with evaluation of safety, efficacy and expulsion. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2012;1(1):2632.

Ballith K. Acceptability, uptake and safety of intra operative IUCD placement at KNH and Pumwani Maternity hospital. Available at: http:/erepository .uonbi.ac.ke:8080/xlui/handle/12345778/178/dated 2012. Accessed on 12th April 2020.

Gupta A, Verma A, Chauhan J. Evaluation of PPIUCD versus interval IUCD (380A) insertion in teaching hospital of western Uttar Pradesh. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2013;2(2):294-8.

Shukla M, Chandrawati S. Postplacental intrauterine device insertion - a five-year experience at tertiary care centre in north India. Indian J Med Res. 2012;16(3):432-5.

Halder A, Sowmya MS, Gayen A, Bhattacharya P, Mukherjee S, Datta S. A prospective study to evaluate vaginal insertion and intra-cesarean insertion of post-partum intrauterine contraceptive device. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2016;66(1):35-41.

Bhat SS, Damle H, Darawade SP, Junnare K, Ashturkar M. To study the acceptance of postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device, CU T 380 A, in a tertiary care hospital in India. J Reprod Health Med. 2016;2(2):93-8.






Original Research Articles