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

2021, Number 03

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2021; 89 (03)

Intrauterine device migrated in pregnant patient. Diagnosis and management with endoscopic surgery

Rosales-Torbaño C, Frías-Sánchez Z, Ruiz-Fernández I, Castillo-Cantero IA, Melero-Cortés LM, Martínez-Maestre MÁ

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 255-261
PDF size: 273.43 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) are a popular, reversible and frequently used method of contraception worldwide. They are usually inserted without major setbacks. Uterine perforation is a rare complication that can result in migration of the IUD into the pelvic or abdominal cavity or adjacent structures.
Objective: To enrich the bibliography on the diagnosis of this complication and to favor its clinical treatment, contributing our experience because the IUD is a contraceptive method of widespread use.
Clinical case: 32-year-old female patient, IUD carrier, 12 weeks pregnant, asymptomatic. The migrated IUD was a finding during routine ultrasound examination. The suspicion was confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging which showed the suspected extrauterine location. The device was removed by laparoscopic surgery in the 16th week of pregnancy, without complications. The postoperative course was normal, and at the time of the publication of the report the patient was 30 weeks pregnant.
Conclusions: Advances in laparoscopic technique have allowed surgeons to safely retrieve perforated IUDs, even during pregnancy.


REFERENCES

  1. Dennis J, Hampton N. IUDs: which device? J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2002; 28 (2): 61‐68. http://dx.doi. org/10.1783/147118902101196199.

  2. Lei Y, Iablakov V, Karmali RJ, Forbes N. ACG Case Rep J. 2019; 6 (6): e00090. doi. 10.14309/crj.0000000000000271.

  3. World Health Organization. Sexual and reproductive health. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/ maternal_perinatal_health/en/index.html.

  4. Boortz HE, Margolis DJ, Ragavendra N, Patel MK, Kadell BM. Migration of intrauterine devices: radiologic findings and implications for patient care. Radiographics. 2012; 32 (2): 335‐52. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.322115068.

  5. Black A, Guilbert E, Costescu D, et al. Canadian contraception consensus (part 3 of 4): Chapter 7 e intrauterine contraception. J Obstet Gynecol Can. 2018; 2016 (329): 182-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2015.12.002.

  6. Cheung ML, Rezai S, Jackman JM, Patel ND, Bernaba BZ, Hakimian O, Nuritdinova D, Turley CL, Mercado R, Takeshige T, Reddy SM, Fuller PN, Henderson CE. Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 2018: 9362962. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9362962.

  7. Committee Opinion No 672 Summary Clinical Challenges of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128 (3): 674‐75. doi.10.1097/ AOG.0000000000001637.

  8. Akpinar F, Ozgur EN, Yilmaz S, Ustaoglu O. Sigmoid colon migration of an intrauterine device. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 2014: 207659. doi.10.1155/2014/207659.

  9. Niu H, Qu Q, Yang X, Zhang L. Partial Perforation of the Bladder by an Intrauterine Device in a Pregnant Woman: A Case Report. J Reprod Med. 2015; 60 (11-12): 543-6.

  10. Basiri A, Shakiba B, Rostaminejad N. Removal of intramural trapped intrauterine device by cystoscopic incision of bladder wall. Int Braz J Urol. 2019; 45 (2): 408-9. doi. 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0056.

  11. Arif SH, Mohammed AA. Migrated intrauterine device presented as anterior abdominal wall abscess. J Surg Case Rep. 2019; 2019 (6): rjz174. doi. 10.1093/jscr/rjz174.

  12. Agacayak E, Tunc SY, Icen MS, Oguz A, Ozler A, Turgut A, Basaranoglu S. Evaluation of predisposing factors, diagnostic and treatment methods in patients with translocation of intrauterine devices. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015; 41 (5): 735-41. doi. 10.1111/jog.12620.

  13. Andersson K, Ryde-Blomqvist E, Lindell K, Odlind V, Milsom I. Perforations with Intrauterine Devices: Report from a Swedish Survey. Contraception. 1998; 57 (4): 251-5. doi. 10.1016/S0010-7824(98)00029-8.

  14. Caliskan E, Ozturk N, Dilbaz BO, Dilbaz S. Analysis of Risk Factors Associated with Uterine Perforation by Intrauterine Devices. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2003; 8: 150-5. doi. 10.1080/ejc.8.3.150.155.

  15. Shen JK, Ko EY, Staack A. Early pregnancy likely caused by an intravesical intrauterine device. Can J Urol. 2016; 23 (5): 8487-90.

  16. Li X, Li H, Li C, Luo X, Song Y, Li S, Luo S, Wang Y. Migration of an intrauterine device causing severe hydronephrosis progressing to renal failure: A case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98 (3): e13872. doi. 10.1097/MD.0000000000013872.

  17. Giampaolino P, Della Corte L, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Zizolfi B, Manzi A, De Angelis C, Bifulco G, Carugno J. Emergent Laparoscopic Removal of a Perforating Intrauterine Device During Pregnancy Under Regional Anesthesia. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26 (6): 1013-14. doi. 10.1016/j. jmig.2019.03.012.

  18. Lei Y, Iablakov V, Karmali RJ, Forbes N. Endoscopic Removal of Migrated Intrauterine Device: Case Report and Review of Literature and Technique. ACG Case Rep J. 2019; 6 (6): e00090. doi. 10.14309/crj.0000000000000090.

  19. Uysal G, Nazik H, Tanridan Okçu N, Seyfettinoglu S, Kazgan H. Surgical Removal of an Extrauterine Device Migrating to Appendix. Case Rep Med. 2016; 2016: 4732153. https:// doi.org/10.1155/2016/4732153.

  20. Bozkurt IH, Basmaci I, Yonguc T, Aydogdu O, Aydin ME, Sefik E, et al. Hydronephrosis due to a migrated intrauterine device into the ureter: A very rare case. Eurasian J Med. 2018; 50: 137-8. doi. 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2017.17157.

  21. Gill RS, Mok D, Hudson M, Shi X, Birch DW, Karmali S. Laparoscopic removal of an intra-abdominal intrauterine device: case and systematic review. Contraception 2012; 85 (1): 15- 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2011.04.015.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com