Cargando…

Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND: Throughout the world, intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) are a frequently used, reversible, popular contraceptive method. They are usually placed without major complications. Uterine perforation is a rarely observed complication. Migration of the IUD to the pelvic/abdominal cavity...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheung, Mon-Lai, Rezai, Shadi, Jackman, Janelle M., Patel, Neil D., Bernaba, Basem Z., Hakimian, Omid, Nuritdinova, Dilfuza, Turley, Catherine L., Mercado, Ray, Takeshige, Takeko, Reddy, Sudha M., Fuller, Paul N., Henderson, Cassandra E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30627466
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/9362962
_version_ 1783382384437100544
author Cheung, Mon-Lai
Rezai, Shadi
Jackman, Janelle M.
Patel, Neil D.
Bernaba, Basem Z.
Hakimian, Omid
Nuritdinova, Dilfuza
Turley, Catherine L.
Mercado, Ray
Takeshige, Takeko
Reddy, Sudha M.
Fuller, Paul N.
Henderson, Cassandra E.
author_facet Cheung, Mon-Lai
Rezai, Shadi
Jackman, Janelle M.
Patel, Neil D.
Bernaba, Basem Z.
Hakimian, Omid
Nuritdinova, Dilfuza
Turley, Catherine L.
Mercado, Ray
Takeshige, Takeko
Reddy, Sudha M.
Fuller, Paul N.
Henderson, Cassandra E.
author_sort Cheung, Mon-Lai
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Throughout the world, intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) are a frequently used, reversible, popular contraceptive method. They are usually placed without major complications. Uterine perforation is a rarely observed complication. Migration of the IUD to the pelvic/abdominal cavity or adjacent structures can occur after perforation. We present 3 cases of uterine perforation, possibly due to scarred myometrium associated with a cesarean delivery. We describe 3 perforations with IUDs lodged in the bladder serosa, the posterior cul-de-sac, and tissue adjacent to the cardinal ligament and external iliac artery. CASES:  Case  1.  26-year-old, Gravid 4, Para 2113, nonpregnant female with a history of a cesarean delivery underwent placement of an IUD one year after an elective pregnancy termination, presenting with abdominal pain requesting removal of the IUD. On speculum, although the IUD strings were visualized, the IUD could not be removed. Sonogram imaging identified an empty endometrial cavity with the IUD in posterior cul-de-sac. The IUD was removed via laparoscopy. CASE  2: 34-year-old Gravida 5, Para 4004, at 27 weeks and 3 days gestation, female with history of two previous cesarean deliveries underwent a third cesarean after spontaneous rupture of membranes with comorbid chorioamnionitis. Reproductive history was significant for placement of an IUD that had not been removed or imaged during obstetrical sonograms. The clinical evaluation revealed that the IUD had been spontaneously expelled. On the fifth operative day, the patient is febrile with CT demonstrating the IUD penetrating the anterior surface of bladder. On cystoscopy the bladder mucosa was intact. The IUD was removed via laparotomy with repair of the bladder, serosa, and muscular layer. CASE  3: 26-year-old, Gravid 4, P3013, nonpregnant female with three previous Cesarean deliveries had an IUD in place. However, with the IUD in situ, the patient conceived and had a spontaneous abortion. After the spontaneous abortion, she presented to clinic to have the IUD removed due to pain that was present since placement. Although the IUD strings were visualized, attempts to remove it were unsuccessful. Imaging identified the IUD outside the uterine cavity. Palpation with a blunt probe laparoscopically revealed a hard object within the adhesion band, close to the cardinal ligament. As per radiology evaluation, IUD was embedded 1cm from the external iliac artery on the right side outside the uterus in the adnexal region. A multidisciplinary procedure with gynecologic-oncologist was scheduled for removal due to the high risk of perioperative bleeding. CONCLUSION: Patients in whom uterine perforation and IUD migration are suspected should have appropriate evaluation that includes transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound or radiographs to confirm the position of the IUD, regardless of whether they are asymptomatic or present with symptoms. It is particularly important in the presence of a scarred uterus that imaging is used to identify the location of a missing IUD. The uterine scar of a cesarean may facilitate migration of the IUD. Cross sectional imaging, such as CT or MRI scan, may be needed to rule out adjacent organ involvement before surgical removal.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6304543
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63045432019-01-09 Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature Cheung, Mon-Lai Rezai, Shadi Jackman, Janelle M. Patel, Neil D. Bernaba, Basem Z. Hakimian, Omid Nuritdinova, Dilfuza Turley, Catherine L. Mercado, Ray Takeshige, Takeko Reddy, Sudha M. Fuller, Paul N. Henderson, Cassandra E. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol Case Report BACKGROUND: Throughout the world, intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) are a frequently used, reversible, popular contraceptive method. They are usually placed without major complications. Uterine perforation is a rarely observed complication. Migration of the IUD to the pelvic/abdominal cavity or adjacent structures can occur after perforation. We present 3 cases of uterine perforation, possibly due to scarred myometrium associated with a cesarean delivery. We describe 3 perforations with IUDs lodged in the bladder serosa, the posterior cul-de-sac, and tissue adjacent to the cardinal ligament and external iliac artery. CASES:  Case  1.  26-year-old, Gravid 4, Para 2113, nonpregnant female with a history of a cesarean delivery underwent placement of an IUD one year after an elective pregnancy termination, presenting with abdominal pain requesting removal of the IUD. On speculum, although the IUD strings were visualized, the IUD could not be removed. Sonogram imaging identified an empty endometrial cavity with the IUD in posterior cul-de-sac. The IUD was removed via laparoscopy. CASE  2: 34-year-old Gravida 5, Para 4004, at 27 weeks and 3 days gestation, female with history of two previous cesarean deliveries underwent a third cesarean after spontaneous rupture of membranes with comorbid chorioamnionitis. Reproductive history was significant for placement of an IUD that had not been removed or imaged during obstetrical sonograms. The clinical evaluation revealed that the IUD had been spontaneously expelled. On the fifth operative day, the patient is febrile with CT demonstrating the IUD penetrating the anterior surface of bladder. On cystoscopy the bladder mucosa was intact. The IUD was removed via laparotomy with repair of the bladder, serosa, and muscular layer. CASE  3: 26-year-old, Gravid 4, P3013, nonpregnant female with three previous Cesarean deliveries had an IUD in place. However, with the IUD in situ, the patient conceived and had a spontaneous abortion. After the spontaneous abortion, she presented to clinic to have the IUD removed due to pain that was present since placement. Although the IUD strings were visualized, attempts to remove it were unsuccessful. Imaging identified the IUD outside the uterine cavity. Palpation with a blunt probe laparoscopically revealed a hard object within the adhesion band, close to the cardinal ligament. As per radiology evaluation, IUD was embedded 1cm from the external iliac artery on the right side outside the uterus in the adnexal region. A multidisciplinary procedure with gynecologic-oncologist was scheduled for removal due to the high risk of perioperative bleeding. CONCLUSION: Patients in whom uterine perforation and IUD migration are suspected should have appropriate evaluation that includes transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound or radiographs to confirm the position of the IUD, regardless of whether they are asymptomatic or present with symptoms. It is particularly important in the presence of a scarred uterus that imaging is used to identify the location of a missing IUD. The uterine scar of a cesarean may facilitate migration of the IUD. Cross sectional imaging, such as CT or MRI scan, may be needed to rule out adjacent organ involvement before surgical removal. Hindawi 2018-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6304543/ /pubmed/30627466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/9362962 Text en Copyright © 2018 Mon-Lai Cheung et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Case Report
Cheung, Mon-Lai
Rezai, Shadi
Jackman, Janelle M.
Patel, Neil D.
Bernaba, Basem Z.
Hakimian, Omid
Nuritdinova, Dilfuza
Turley, Catherine L.
Mercado, Ray
Takeshige, Takeko
Reddy, Sudha M.
Fuller, Paul N.
Henderson, Cassandra E.
Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature
title Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature
title_full Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature
title_fullStr Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature
title_full_unstemmed Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature
title_short Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature
title_sort retained intrauterine device (iud): triple case report and review of the literature
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30627466
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/9362962
work_keys_str_mv AT cheungmonlai retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT rezaishadi retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT jackmanjanellem retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT patelneild retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT bernababasemz retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT hakimianomid retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT nuritdinovadilfuza retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT turleycatherinel retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT mercadoray retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT takeshigetakeko retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT reddysudham retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT fullerpauln retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature
AT hendersoncassandrae retainedintrauterinedeviceiudtriplecasereportandreviewoftheliterature