Pérez-Alcázar KV, Pérez-López JC, Martínez-Hernández CM, Ibarra-Rovirosa EA, Aguilar-Chable FL

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 616-622
PDF size: 506.27 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Intrauterine devices are safe and effective contraceptives, although with a risk of uterine perforation if the user is not sufficiently careful and experienced. The incidence of perforation is 1 to 2 cases per thousand insertions.
Objective: Presentation of a case of complete uterine perforation by intrauterine device.
Clinical case: 27-year-old patient, with a history of two cesarean sections, insertion of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device three months after the last one. At the outpatient clinic she reported pelvic pain, intermenstrual bleeding and two unsuccessful attempts to remove the device. Hysteroscopy showed a probable false pathway and the device was not found in the uterine cavity. The abdominopelvic CT scan located it in the left salpingeal cavity; given the suspicion of a translocated IUD, a laparoscopic procedure was decided, in which the uterus was documented with perforation on the right anterior aspect, with granulation tissue and covered by parietal peritoneum, the IUD in the cul-de-sac, oriented to the left, fixed, with lax adhesions. It was removed and, at the patient's request, bilateral salpigectomy was performed. Histopathological study report: moderate chronic salpingitis, with fibrosis and simple paratubal serous cysts.
Conclusions: Intrauterine devices are remarkably simple, safe and long-lasting contraceptives. In general, there is low morbidity associated with their implantation, even when uterine perforation occurs most patients experience mild symptoms: transvaginal bleeding, lower abdominal pain.

REFERENCES

1. Practice Bulletin No. 186: Long-Acting Reversible Contraception:Implants and Intrauterine Devices. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130: 1173-5. doi:10.1097/AOG.00000000000002400

2. Barnett C, Moehner S, Do Minh T, Heinemann K. Perforationrisk and intra-uterine devices: results of the EURAS-IUD5-year extension study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care2017; 22: 424-8. doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2017.1412427

3. O’Brien PA, Pillai S. Uterine perforation by intrauterinedevices: a 16-year review. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care2017;43:289–95. doi:10.1136/jfprhc-2016-101684

4. Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Minh TD. Risk of uterineperforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Studyon Intrauterine Devices. Contraception 2015; 91: 274-79doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.007

5. Kho KA, Chamsy DJ. Perforated intraperitoneal intrauterinecontraceptive devices: diagnosis, management and clinicaloutcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21: 596-601.doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.12.123

6. Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, Lähteenmäki P, et al.Uterine perforation caused by intrauterine devices: clinicalcourse and treatment. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 1546-51.doi:10.1093/humrep/det074

7. Zakin D, Stern WZ, Rosenblatt R. Complete and partialperforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterinedevices. I. Classification, complications, mechanism,incidence, and missing string. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1981;36: 335-53. doi:10.1097/00006254-198107000-00001

8. Aboughalia H, Basavalingu D, Revzin MV, Sienas LE, etel. Imaging evaluation of uterine perforation and rupture.Abdominal Radiology 2021; 46 (10): 4946-66. doi:10.1007/s00261-021-03171-z

9. Gill RS, Mok D, Hudson M, Shi X, et al. Laparoscopicremoval of an intra-abdominal intrauterine device: caseand systematic review. Contraception 2012; 85: 15-18.doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2011.04.015

10. Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, Lähteenmäki P, et al. Intrauterinecontraception: incidence and factors associatedwith uterine perforation. A population-based study. HumReprod 2012; 27: 2658-63. doi:10.1093/humrep/des246

11. Rowlands S, Oloto E, Horwell D. Intrauterine devices andrisk of uterine perforation: current perspectives. OpenAccess J Contracept 2016; 7: 19-32. doi: 10.2147/OAJC.S85546

12. Velázquez VJR, Vilchis NP, Nevarez BRA, et al. Perforaciónuterina y del yeyuno causada por un dispositivo intrauterino.Presentación de un caso con revisión de la literatura.Ginecol Obstet Mex 2006; 74 (8): 435-38.

13. Rosales-Torbaño C, Frías-Sánchez Z, Ruiz-Fernández I,et al. Dispositivo intrauterino migrado en una pacienteembarazada. Dianóstico y tratamiento con cirugía endoscópica.Ginecol Obstet Mex 2021; 89 (3): 255-61.