Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 27 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 88 - 91 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/less.2020.40326 İndeks Tarihi: 05-12-2020

Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience

Öz:
Introduction: Intrauterine contraception devices (IUCD) are frequently and safely used in pregnancy control. Migration related complications, such as adhesions and perforations, can be encountered as the most importantbut rare circumstances. In such cases, the laparoscopic approach is beneficial with the least harm principle.Materials and Methods: This study included ten patients who were admitted to our hospital between 2015–2019 with chronic abdominal pain, induced by migrated intrauterine devices. Patients’ complaints, radiological methods used in diagnosis, IUCD insertion timing, migration of IUCD and time interval to diagnosis, intra–abdominal migration points, and types, as well as surgical interventions, were evaluated retrospectively.Results: While all patients were diagnosed with abdominal ultrasonography and gynecological examination, some patients underwent computed tomography 60% and plain radiogram 20% as additional imaging.While the intra–abdominal migration site of IUCD was ascertained as the most common localization in thelower right quadrant of the omentum (30%), the placement in the umbilical hernia site was the rarest and theonly one in the literature. Three different types of IUCD were detected; Copper–T (80%) was the most common, while IUCDs were laparoscopically removed in all patients except for the patient who underwent opensurgery due to acute cholecystitis. All patients who had laparoscopic surgery were discharged the next day.Conclusion: In conclusion, the IUCD’s frequency of use is increasing as the current method of contraception,dislocation of the device may be encountered if the required conditions are not taken into considerationduring the application. In such a situation, laparoscopic removal of a dislocated IUCD is a safe, feasible, andless invasive method.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Brar R, Doddi S, Ramasamy A, Sinha P. A forgotten migrated intrauterine contraceptive device is not always innocent: A case report. Case Rep Med 2010;2010:740642.
  • 2. Bitterman A, Lefel O, Segev Y, Lavie O. Laparoscopic removal of an intrauterine device following colon perforation. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 2010; 14:456–8.
  • 3. Broso PR, Buffetti G. The IUD and uterine perforation. Minerva Ginecol 1994;46:505–9.
  • 4. Speroff L, Fritz MA, Glass RH. KNC gynaecology endocrinology & infertility. 7th ed. W& W; 2005. p. 983.
  • 5. Caliskan E, Öztürk N, Dilbaz BÖ, Dilbaz S. Analysis of risk factors associated with uterine perforation by intrauterine devices. Eur J Contracept Reprod Heal Care 2003;8:150–5.
  • 6. Andersson K, Ryde-Blomqvist E, Lindell K, Odlind V, Milsom I. Perforations with intrauterine devices: Report from a Swedish survey. Contraception 1998;57:251–5.
  • 7. Heartwell SF, Schlesselman S. Risk of uterine perforation among users of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61:31–6.
  • 8. Chi I cheng. What we have learned from recent IUD studies: A researcher’s perspective. Contraception 1993;48:81–108.
  • 9. Mosley FR, Shahi N, Kurer MA. Elective surgical removal of migrated intrauterine contraceptive devices from within the peritoneal cavity: A comparison between open and laparoscopic removal. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 2012;16:236–41.
  • 10. Markovitch O, Klein Z, Gidoni Y, Holzinger M, Beyth Y. Extrauterine mislocated IUD: Is surgical removal mandatory? Contraception 2002;66105–8.
  • 11. Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1987;753:1–91.
  • 12. Silva PD, Larson KM. Laparoscopic removal of a perforated intrauterine device from the perirectal fat. JSLS 2000; 4:159– 62.
  • 13. Mülayim B, Mülayim S, Celik NY. A lost intrauterine device. Guess where we found it and how it happened? Eur J Contracept Reprod Heal Care 2006;11:47–9.
  • 14. Aydogdu O, Pulat H. Asymptomatic far-migration of an intrauterine device into the abdominal cavity: A rare entity. J Can Urol Assoc 2012;6E134–6
APA Mantoglu B, Kamburoğlu M, GONULLU E, Akin E, Altintoprak F, Uslu Yuvacı H, Aziret M (2020). Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience. , 88 - 91. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
Chicago Mantoglu Baris,Kamburoğlu Muhammet Burak,GONULLU Emre,Akin Emrah,Altintoprak Fatih,Uslu Yuvacı Hilal,Aziret Mehmet Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience. (2020): 88 - 91. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
MLA Mantoglu Baris,Kamburoğlu Muhammet Burak,GONULLU Emre,Akin Emrah,Altintoprak Fatih,Uslu Yuvacı Hilal,Aziret Mehmet Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience. , 2020, ss.88 - 91. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
AMA Mantoglu B,Kamburoğlu M,GONULLU E,Akin E,Altintoprak F,Uslu Yuvacı H,Aziret M Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience. . 2020; 88 - 91. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
Vancouver Mantoglu B,Kamburoğlu M,GONULLU E,Akin E,Altintoprak F,Uslu Yuvacı H,Aziret M Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience. . 2020; 88 - 91. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
IEEE Mantoglu B,Kamburoğlu M,GONULLU E,Akin E,Altintoprak F,Uslu Yuvacı H,Aziret M "Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience." , ss.88 - 91, 2020. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
ISNAD Mantoglu, Baris vd. "Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience". (2020), 88-91. https://doi.org/10.14744/less.2020.40326
APA Mantoglu B, Kamburoğlu M, GONULLU E, Akin E, Altintoprak F, Uslu Yuvacı H, Aziret M (2020). Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, 27(2), 88 - 91. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
Chicago Mantoglu Baris,Kamburoğlu Muhammet Burak,GONULLU Emre,Akin Emrah,Altintoprak Fatih,Uslu Yuvacı Hilal,Aziret Mehmet Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science 27, no.2 (2020): 88 - 91. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
MLA Mantoglu Baris,Kamburoğlu Muhammet Burak,GONULLU Emre,Akin Emrah,Altintoprak Fatih,Uslu Yuvacı Hilal,Aziret Mehmet Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, vol.27, no.2, 2020, ss.88 - 91. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
AMA Mantoglu B,Kamburoğlu M,GONULLU E,Akin E,Altintoprak F,Uslu Yuvacı H,Aziret M Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science. 2020; 27(2): 88 - 91. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
Vancouver Mantoglu B,Kamburoğlu M,GONULLU E,Akin E,Altintoprak F,Uslu Yuvacı H,Aziret M Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science. 2020; 27(2): 88 - 91. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
IEEE Mantoglu B,Kamburoğlu M,GONULLU E,Akin E,Altintoprak F,Uslu Yuvacı H,Aziret M "Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience." Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, 27, ss.88 - 91, 2020. 10.14744/less.2020.40326
ISNAD Mantoglu, Baris vd. "Missing intrauterine devices, laparoscopic and a conventional management: A single–center experience". Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science 27/2 (2020), 88-91. https://doi.org/10.14744/less.2020.40326