medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2015, Number 08

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2015; 83 (08)

Mathew’s clip, an alternative for removal of IUDs with no visible threads. Experience of Family Planning Service

Buitrón García-Figueroa RG, Oropeza-Rechy G, Lara-Ricalde R, García-Hernández A, Luis-Sánchez SA

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 467-470
PDF size: 366.45 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: The absence of IUD visible threads in the cervix is a complication of the intrauterine device. The IUD withdrawal in these cases was performed with Novak cannula or curettage instrumented under anesthesia and surgery. Its extraction with Mathew clip is an alternative.
Objective: To demostrate the effectiveness of the Mathew’s clip as an alternatively for removal of intrauterine devices not visible threads.
Material and methods: A cross-sectional, retrospective, descriptive study was conducted in from February 2012 to July 2014 at the Family Planning Service of Gynecology and Obstetrics of the General Hospital of Mexico “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga “.
Results: 106 patients (54%) had no visible threads; in 84 patients (81.5 %) it was removed with Novak, cannula; in 19 patients (18.4%) in which it was not possible, the removal was done with a Mathew’s clip.
Discussion: Mathew’ clip is an alternative in cases where it was not possible to remove the IUD with Novak cannula, 19 IUDs no visible threads were removed.
Conclusions. Mathew clip for removal of intrauterine devices with no visible threads means less risk to the patient and a decrease in institutional costs.


REFERENCES

  1. Dean G, Schwarz E. Intrauterine Contraceptives (IUCs). In: Hatcher R, Trusell J, Nelson A. Contraceptive Technology. 20th revised edition. Ardent Media 2011;147-191.

  2. ACOG practice bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 59, January 2005. Intrauterine device. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:223-232.

  3. Fortney JA, Feldblum PJ, Raymomd EG. Intrauterine devices. The optimal long-term contraceptive method. Journal Reprod Med 1999;44:267-274.

  4. Speroff L, Darney P. A Clinical Guide for Contraception. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001.

  5. Turok DK, Gurtcheff SE, Gibson K, Handley E, Simomsen S, Murphy PA. Operative management of intrauterine device complications: a case series report. Contraception 2010;82:353-357.

  6. Lara RR, Velázquez RN, Reyes ME, Baca OP. Dispositivo intrauterino postplacenta: hilos guía no visibles. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2011;80:201-207.

  7. Garcia LI, Pichardo CM, Meza LE, Conteras CN. Manejo de dispositivo intrauterino traslocado. Rev Invest Med Sur Mex 2012;19:7-9.

  8. Alanis FJ, Amoroso HM. Histeroscopia de consultorio para extracción de dispositivo intrauterino. Revisión de la bibliografía. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2009;77:199-203.

  9. Arias HJ, Pérez PJ, Becerril A, Lozano FM, y col. Retiro de dispositivo intrauterino mediante histeroscopia de consultorio posterior a falla de retiro con cánula de biopsia de endometrio en el Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad de la Mujer, Tabasco. Salud en Tabasco 2009;15:868-870.

  10. Gonzalvo V, López LM, Aznar G, Mola MJ, et al. Perforación uterina y migración vesical de un dispositivo intrauterino. Actas Urol Esp 2001;25:458-461.

  11. Lara RR, Menocal-Tobias G, Ramos PC, Velázquez RN. Estudio comparativo al azar entre los dispositivos intrauterinos Multiload C 373 y Tcu 380 A, colocados durante el postparto. Ginecol Obst Mex 2006;74:306-311.

  12. Kapp N, Curtis KM. Intrauterine device insertion during the postpartum period: a systematic review. Contraception 2009;80:327-336.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com