Intrauterine device continuation rates and reasons for discontinuation in a Central European clinic with a high standard of care and ultrasound follow-up: a retrospective cohort study

References

• Sivin I, el Mahgoub S, McCarthy T, et al. Long-term contraception with the levonorgestrel 20 mcg/day (LNg 20) and the copper T 380Ag intrauterine devices: a five-year randomized study. Contraception 1990;42:361–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden T, McNicholas C, Zhao Q, et al. Association of age and parity with intrauterine device expulsion. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:718–726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonatto P, Bahamondes MV, Fernandes A, et al. Comparison of two cohorts of women who expulsed either a copper-intrauterine device or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016;42:554–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Contraceptive Use New York: UN; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• d'Arcangues C. Worldwide use of intrauterine devices for contraception. Contraception 2007;75:S2–S7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahamondes L, Brache V, Meirik O, et al. A 3-year multicentre randomized controlled trial of etonogestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants, with non-randomized matched copper-intrauterine device controls. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2527–2538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoun J, Dines VA, Stovall DW, et al. Effects of age, parity, and device type on complications and discontinuation of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:585–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diedrich JT, Madden T, Zhao Q, et al. Long-term utilization and continuation of intrauterine devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:822.e1–e826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merki-Feld GS, Schwarz D, Imthurn B, et al. Partial and complete expulsion of the Multiload 375 IUD and the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD after correct insertion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;137:92–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe P, Farley T, Peregoudov A, et al. Safety and efficacy in parous women of a 52-mg levonorgestrel-medicated intrauterine device: a 7-year randomized comparative study with the TCu380A. Contraception 2016;93:498–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anteby E, Revel A, Ben-Chetrit A, et al. Intrauterine device failure: relation to its location within the uterine cavity. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:112–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petta CA, Faundes D, Pimentel E, et al. The use of vaginal ultrasound to identify copper T IUDs at high risk of expulsion. Contraception 1996;54:287–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Kroon CD, van HJC, Trimbos JB, et al. The value of transvaginal ultrasound to monitor the position of an intrauterine device after insertion. A technology assessment study. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2323–2327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahamondes L, Diaz J, Marchi NM, et al. Performance of copper intrauterine devices when inserted after an expulsion. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:2917–2918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meirik O, Rowe PJ, Peregoudov A, et al. The frameless copper IUD (GyneFix) and the TCu380A IUD: results of an 8-year multicenter randomized comparative trial. Contraception 2009;80:133–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batar I, Kuukankorpi A, Siljander M, et al. Five-year clinical experiences with NOVA T 380 copper IUD. Contraception 2002;66:309–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Apter D, Hauck B, et al. The effect of age, parity and body mass index on the efficacy, safety, placement and user satisfaction associated with two low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: subgroup analyses of data from a phase III trial. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0135309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faundes D, Perdigao A, Faundes A, et al. T-shaped IUDs accommodate in their position during the first 3 months after insertion. Contraception 2000;62:165–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayer LL, Jensen JT, Li H, et al. Adolescent experience with intrauterine device insertion and use: a retrospective cohort study. Contraception 2012;86:443–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders JN, Turok DK, Gawron LM, et al. Two-year continuation of intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants in a mixed-payer setting: a retrospective review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:590.e1–5e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips SJ, Hofler LG, Modest AM, et al. Continuation of copper and levonorgestrel intrauterine devices: a retrospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:57.e1–e6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg MJ, Foldesy R, Mishell DR, et al. Performance of the TCu380A and Cu-Fix IUDs in an international randomized trail. Contraception 1996;53:197–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youm J, Lee HJ, Kim SK, et al. Factors affecting the spontaneous expulsion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;126:165–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faundes D, Bahamondes L, Faundes A, et al. No relationship between the IUD position evaluated by ultrasound and complaints of bleeding and pain. Contraception 1997;56:43–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thonneau P, Almont T, de la Rochebrochard E, et al. Risk factors for IUD failure: results of a large multicentre case–control study. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2612–2616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law A, Liao L, Lin J, et al. Twelve-month discontinuation rates of levonorgestrel intrauterine system 13.5 mg and subdermal etonogestrel implant in women aged 18–44: a retrospective claims database analysis. Contraception. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2018.04.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar