Intrauterine contraceptives that do not fit well contribute to early discontinuation

References

• Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy. Contraceptive technology, In: Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, et al. , eds. 19th revised edn. New York, NY: Ardent Media; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). Long-acting reversible contraception – The effective and appropriate use of long-acting reversible contraception. Accessed 12 September 2010 from: http://www.nice.org.uk/CG030
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Intrauterine devices. In: Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 3rd edn. Geneva: WHO; 2004: 1–17. Accessed 16 August 2007 from: http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/mec/7_iud.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ACOG Committee Opinion. Intrauterine device and adolescents. Obstet Gynecol 2007;11:1493–5.
   Google Scholar
• Hubacher D, Lara-Ricalde R, Taylor DJ, et al. Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med 2001;345:561–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penney G, Brechin S, de Souza A, et al. FFPRHC Guidance (January 2004). The copper intrauterine device as long-term contraception. Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Clinical Effectiveness Unit [published erratum in J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004;30:134]. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004;30:29–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hov GG, Skjeldestad FE, Hilstad T. Use of IUD and subsequent fertility – Follow-up after participation in a randomized clinical trial. Contraception 2007;75:88–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortiz ME, Croxatto HB. Copper-T intrauterine device and levonorgestrel intrauterine system: Biological bases of their mechanism of action. Contraception 2007;75:S16–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Batár I. State-of-the art of non-hormonal methods of contraception: III. Intrauterine devices. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2010;15:96–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasson HM. Uterine geometry and IUD performance. Medicated intrauterine devices: Physiological and clinical aspects. In: Hafez ESE, van Os WAA, eds. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1980: 11–21.
   Google Scholar
• Kurz KH. Cavimeter uterine measurements and IUD clinical correlation. Intrauterine contraception: Advances and future prospects. In: Zatuchni GI, Goldsmith A, Sciarra JJ, eds. Philadelphia: Harper & Row; 1984:142–62.
   Google Scholar
• Canteiro R, Bahamondes V, dos Santos Fernandes A, et al. Length of the endometrial cavity as measured by uterine sounding and ultrasonography in women of different parities. Contraception 2010;81:515–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Püroinen O, Kkaihola HL. Uterine size measurements by ultrasound during the menstrual cycle. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1975;54:47–53.
   Google Scholar
• Behrman SJ, Burchfield W. The intrauterine contraceptive device and myometrial activity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1968;100:194–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson H, Ashtin J, Harisson-Woolrych. A nationwide cohort study of the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device in New Zealand adolescents. Contraception 2009;79:433–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otero-Flores JB, Guerrero-Carreno FJ, Vazquez-Estrada LA. A comparative randomized study of three different IUDs in nulliparous Mexican women. Contraception 2003;67:273–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I. Problems in the conduct and analysis of “a comparative randomized study of three different IUDs in nulliparous Mexican women”. Contraception 2004;69:259–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildemeersch D, Janssens D, Andrade A. The Femilis® LNG-IUS: Contraceptive performance – an interim analysis. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2009;14:103–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyus R, Lohr P, Prager S., Board of the Society of Family Planning. Use of Mirena LNG-IUS and Paragard CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception 2010;81:367–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I, Greenslade F, Schmidt F, et al. The copper T 380 intrauterine device – A summary of scientific dataNew YorkThe Population Council1992.
   Google Scholar
• Wildemeersch D, Van der Pas H, Thiery M, et al. The Copper-Fix (Cu-Fix): A new concept in IUD technology. Adv Contracept 1988;4:197–205.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Kets H, Vrijens M, Van Trappen Y, et al. The frameless GyneFix® intrauterine implant: A major improvement in efficacy, expulsion and tolerance. Adv Contracept 1995;11:131–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meirik O, Rowe PJ, Peregoudov A, et al. for the IUD Research Group at the UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction. The frameless copper IUD (GyneFix) and the TCu380A IUD: Results of an 8-year multicenter randomized comparative trial. Contraception 2009;80:133–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildemeersch D, Andrade A. Commentary – A historical note on the development of the frameless IUD. Contraception 2010;81:172–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu S, Hu J, Wildemeersch D. Performance of the frameless GyneFix and the TCu380A IUDs in a three-year multicenter randomized comparative trial in parous women. Contraception 2000;61:91–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao X, Zhang W, Zhao X, et al. Three-year efficacy and acceptability of the GyneFix® 200 intrauterine system (IUS). Contraception 2004;69:207–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatum HJ, Connell EB. Intrauterine devices. Contraception: Science and practice. In: M Filshie and J Guillebaud, London: Butterworths; 1989:144–71.
   Google Scholar
• Andrade ATL, Pizarro Orchard E. Quantitative studies on menstrual blood loss in IUD users. Contraception 1987;36:129–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimes DA, Hubacher D, Lopez LM, et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy bleeding or pain associated with intrauterine-device use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 (4):CD006034.
   Google Scholar
• Hubacher D, Reyes V, Lillo S, et al. Pain from copper intrauterine device insertion: Randomised trial of prophylactic ibuprofen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:1272–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildemeersch D, Rowe PJ. Assessment of menstrual blood loss in Belgian users of the frameless copper-releasing IUD with copper surface are of 200 mm2 and users of a copper-levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception 2004;70:169–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosonen A. Factors influencing the dissolution of copper in utero. Contracept Del Syst 1981;2:77–85.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kosonen A. Corrosion of copper in utero. Medicated intrauterine devices. In: Hafez ESE and van Os W, eds. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff; 1980:22–9.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner H. Intrauterine contraception: Past present and future. Fertility control: Update and trends. In: Rabe T and Runnebaum B, eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1999:151–71.
   Google Scholar
• Chantler EN. Copper loss from copper IUDs. Intrauterine contraception: Advances and future prospects. In: Zatuchni GI, Goldsmith A, Sciarra JJ, eds. Philadelphia: Harper & Row; 1984:198–210.
   Google Scholar