Intrauterine device quo vadis? Why intrauterine device use should be revisited particularly in nulliparous women?

References

• TrussellJContraceptive failure in the United StatesContraception20118339740421477680
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BlumenthalPVoedischAGemzell-DanielsonKStrategies to prevent unintended pregnancy: increasing use of long-acting reversible contraceptionHum Reprod Update20111712113720634208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SecuraGMAllsworthJEMaddenTMullersmanJLPeipertJFThe Contraceptive CHOICE project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraceptionAm J Obstet Gynecol2010203115e1e720541171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HaimovichSProfile of long-acting reversible contraception users in EuropeEur J Contracept Reprod Health Care20091418719519565416
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)Committee opinion no 539: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devicesObstet Gynecol201212098398822996129
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DanversAAStuartGSBryantAGLawsuits against Mirena®: potential impact on public healthContraception20148948949224768305
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PatersonHAshtinJHarrison-WoolrychMA nationwide cohort study of the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device in New Zealand adolescentsContraception20097943343819442778
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SuhonenSHaukkamaaMJakobssonTRauramoIClinical performance of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and oral contraceptives in young nulliparous women: a comparative studyContraception20046940741215105064
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TealSBSheederJIUD use in adolescent mothers: retention, failure and reasons for discontinuationContraception20128527027422067773
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrockmeyerAKishenMWebbAExperience of IUD/IUS insertions and clinical performance in nulliparous women – a pilot studyEur J Contracept Reprod Health Care20081324825418821462
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GarbersSHaines-StephanJLiptonYMeserveASpielerLChiassonMAContinuation of copper-containing intrauterine devices at 6 monthsContraception20138710110623083530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BerensonABTanAHirthJMWilkinsonGSComplications and continuation of intrauterine device use among commercially insured teenagersObstet Gynecol201312195195823635730
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RasheedSMAbdelmonemAMComplications among adolescents using copper intrauterine contraceptive devicesInt J Gynaecol Obstet201111526927221872240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AounJDinesVAStovallDWMeteMNelsonCBGomez-LoboVEffects of age, parity, and device type on complications and discontinuation of intrauterine devicesObstet Gynecol201412358559224499755
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FarleyTMRosenbergMJRowePJChenJHMeirikOIntrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspectiveLancet19923397857881347812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NealeRKnightIKeaneFDo users of the intrauterine system (Mirena) have different genital symptoms and vaginal flora than users of the intrauterine contraceptive device?Int J STD AIDS20092042342419451330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EverettEDHirschmannJVTransient bacteremia and endocarditis prophylaxis. A reviewMedicine (Baltimore)1977566177834137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ToivonenJLuukkainenTAllonenHProtective effect of intrauterine release of levonorgestrel on pelvic infection: three years’ comparative experience of levonorgestrel- and copper-releasing intrauterine devicesObstet Gynecol1991772612641899136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GrimesDAIntrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infectionLancet20003561013101911041414
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SheltonJDRisk of clinical pelvic inflammatory disease attributable to an intrauterine deviceLancet200135744311273068
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HubacherDLara-RicaldeRTaylorDJGuerra-InfanteFGuzman-RodriguezRUse of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal fertility among nulligravid womenN Engl J Med200134556156711529209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health OrganizationMedical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use4th ed2010 Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241563888_eng.pdfAccessed November 15, 2014
   Google Scholar
• MooreKLPersaudTVNTorchiaMGThe Urogenital System Before We are Born: Essential of Embryology and Birth Defects7th edPhiladelphiaSaunders/Elsevier2008162189
   Google Scholar
• ChanYYJayaprakasanKZamoraJThorntonJGRaine-FenningNCoomarasamyAThe prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic reviewHum Reprod Update20111776177121705770
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JurkovicDGruboeckKTailorANicolaidesKHUltrasound screening for congenital uterine anomaliesBr J Obstet Gynaecol1997104132013219386036
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• GrimbizisGFGordtsSDi SpiezioAThe ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomaliesHum Reprod2013282032204423771171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ShippTDBromleyBBenacerrafBRThe width of the uterine cavity is narrower in patients with an embedded intrauterine device (IUD) compared to a normally positioned IUDJ Ultrasound Med2010291453145620876899
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HassonHMClinical studies of the wing sound II metrology deviceZatuchniGIGoldsmithASciarraJJIntrauterine Contraception: Advances and Future ProspectsPhiladelphiaHarper and Row1984126141
   Google Scholar
• KurzKHCavimeter uterine measurements and IUD clinical correlationZatuchniGIGoldsmithASciarraJJIntrauterine Contraception: Advances and Future ProspectsPhiladelphiaHarper and Row1984142162
   Google Scholar
• GoldstuckNWildemeerschDRole of uterine forces in intrauterine device embedment, perforation, and expulsionInt J Womens Health2014673574425143756
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• KaislasuoJHeikinheimoOLähteenmäkiPPredicting painful or difficult intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous womenObstet Gynecol201412434535325004340
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BenacerrafBRShippTDLyonsJGBromleyBWidth of the normal uterine cavity in premenopausal women and effect of parityObstet Gynecol201011630531020664389
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NelsonAApterDHauckBTwo low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: a randomized controlled trialObstet Gynecol20131221205121324240244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WildemeerschDPettAJandiSHasskampTRowePVrijensMPrecision intrauterine contraception may significantly increase continuation of use: a review of long-term clinical experience with frameless copper-releasing intrauterine contraception devicesInt J Womens Health2013521522523658502
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• WildemeerschDJandiSPettANolteKHasskampTVrijensMUse of frameless intrauterine devices and systems in young nulliparous and adolescent women: results of a multicenter studyInt J Womens Health2014672773425125987
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• EisenbergDMcNicholasCPeipertJFCost as a barrier to long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use in adolescentsJ Adolesc Health201352S59S6323535059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PeipertJFMaddenTAllsworthJESecuraGMPreventing unintended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraceptionObstet Gynecol20121201291129723168752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO Scientific Group on the Mechanism of Action Safety and Efficacy of Intrauterine Devices World Health OrganizationMechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Report of a WHO scientific groupWorld Health Organization technical report series 7531987Geneva191
   Google Scholar
• Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Division of reproductive health, National center for chronic disease prevention and health promotionUS medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Recommendations and Reports6182010/59 RR04Atlanta, GA16
   Google Scholar
• WildemeerschDParewijckWVan KetsHDelbargeWVrijensMThieryMMisconceptions about intrauterine devicesColl Cap-devillaCIglesias CortitLCreatsasGContraception Today: Proceedings of the 4th Congress of the European Society of ContraceptionNew YorkParthenon Publishing1997145153
   Google Scholar
• OrtizNECroxattoHBCopper-T intrauterine device and levonorgestrel intrauterine system: biological bases of their mechanism of actionContraception200775S16S3017531610
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MichieLCameronSTGlasierAWellingsKLoudonJMyths and misconceptions about intrauterine contraception among women seeking termination of pregnancyJ Fam Plann Reprod Health Care201440364023709608
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• AskerCStokes-LampardHBeavanJWilsonSWhat is it about intrauterine devices that women find unacceptable? Factors that make women non-users: a qualitative studyJ Fam Plann Reprod Health Care200632899416824298
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AngioliRDe Cicco NardoneCPlottiFThe use of music to reduce anxiety during office hysteroscopy: a prospective randomized trialJ Minim Invasive Gynecol20142145445923962572
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WardKJacobsonJCTurokDKMurphyPAA survey of provider experience with misoprostol to facilitate intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous womenContraception20118459459922078188
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ScavuzziASouzaASCostaAAAmorimMMMisoprostol prior to inserting an intrauterine device in nulligravidas: a randomized clinical trialHum Reprod2013282118212523739219
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ArvidssonCHelborgMGemzell-DanielssonKPreference and acceptability of oral versus vaginal administration of misoprostol in medical administration of misoprostol in medical abortion with mifepristoneEur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol2005123879116260342
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DermishAITurokDKJacobsonJCFloresMESMcFaddenMBurkeKFailed IUD insertions in community practice: an under-recognized problem?Contraception20138718218622979954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AkinMDWeingandKWHengeholdDAGoodaleMBHinkleRTSmithRPContinuous low-level topical heat in the treatment of dysmenorrheaObstet Gynecol20019734334911239634
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LippesJMalikTTatumHJThe postcoital copper-TAdv Plan Parent1976112429976578
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ClelandKZhuHGoldstuckNChengLTrusselJThe efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception: a systematic review of 35 years of experienceHum Reprod2012271994200022570193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TrussellJSchwarzEBEmergency contraceptionHatcherRATrussellJNelsonALCatesWCawalDContraceptive Technology20th edNew YorkArdent Media Inc2008779863
   Google Scholar
• MishellDIntrauterine devices: mechanisms of action, safety, and efficacyContraception19985845S53S9807692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchwarzEBKavanaughMDouglasEDubowitzTCreininMDInterest in intrauterine contraception among seekers of emergency contraception and pregnancy testingObstet Gynecol200911383383919305327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ReevesMFSmithKJCreininMDContraceptive effectiveness of immediate compared to delayed insertion of intrauterine devices after abortion: a decision analysisObstet Gynecol20071091286129417540799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-DanielssonKKopp KallnerHFaúndesAContraception following abortion and the treatment of incomplete abortionInt J Gynaecol Obstet2014126S52S5524739476
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BatárIWildemeerschDVrijensMDelbargeWTemmermanMGboladeBAPreventing abortion and repeat abortion with the GyneFix® intrauterine implant system – preliminary resultsAdv Contracept19981491969820927
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• GboladeBAImmediate insertion of the postabortion version of GyneFix® intrauterine implant systemContemp Rev Obstet Gynaecol1999112933
   Google Scholar
• GoodmanSHendlishSKBenedictCReevesMFPera-FloydMFoster-RosalesAIncreasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to postabortal and interval insertionContraception20087813614218672115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GoodmanSHendlishSKReevesMFFoster-RosalesAImpact of immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine contraception on repeat abortionContraception20087814314818672116
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BednarekPHCreininMDReevesMFCwiakCEspeyEJensenJTPost-aspiration IUD randomization (PAIR) study trial group. Immediate versus delayed IUD insertion after uterine aspirationN Engl J Med20113642208221721651392
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GrimesDSchulzKVan VlietHStanwoodNImmediate postpartum insertion of intrauterine devicesCochrane Database Syst Rev2003121CD003036
   Google Scholar
• ChenBAReevesMFHayesJLHohmannHLPerrieraLKCreininMDPostplacental or delayed insertion of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device after vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trialObstet Gynecol20101161079108720966692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TatumHJBeltranRSRamosRVan KetsHSivinISchmidtFHImmediate postplacental insertion of GYNE-T 380 and GYNE-T 380 postpartum intrauterine contraceptive devices: randomized studyAm J Obstet Gynecol1996175123112358942493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GoldstuckNDSteynPSIntrauterine contraception after cesarean section and during lactation: a systematic reviewInt J Womens Health2013581181824348074
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• KappNCurtisKMIntrauterine device insertion during the postpartum period: a systematic reviewContraception20098032733619751855
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ÇelenSMöröyPSucakAAktulayADanişmanNClinical outcomes of early postplacental insertion of intrauterine contraceptive devicesContraception20046927928215033401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZhouSWChiICImmediate postpartum IUD insertions in a Chinese hospital – a two year follow-upInt J GynaecolObstet199135157164
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GrimesDMishellDJrIntrauterine contraception as an alternative to interval tubal sterilizationContraception2008776918082660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WuJPPickleSExtended use of the intrauterine device: a literature review and recommendations for clinical practiceContraception20148949550324679478
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AntebyERevelABen-ChetritARosenBTadmorOYagelSIntrauterine device failure: relation to its location within the uterine cavityObstet Gynecol1993811121148416443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PimentelEDiazJBahamondesLThe use of vaginal ultrasound to indentify copper T IUDs at high risk of expulsionContraception1996542872898934062
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WuSCLiLZouYDongJLeiZWClinical effect comparison of seven types of IUD placement during intermenstruumChin J Fam Plann200816552556
   Google Scholar
• DeansEIGrimesDAIntrauterine devices for adolescents: a systematic reviewContraception20097941842319442775
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical ExcellenceLong-Acting Reversible ContraceptionNICE Clinical Guidelines 30LondonRCOG2005
   Google Scholar
• O’Neil-CalahanMPeipertJFZhaoQMaddenTSecuraGTwenty-four-month continuation of reversible contraceptionObstet Gynecol20131221083109124104781
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CollierJThe rising proportion of repeat teenage pregnancies in young women presenting for termination of pregnancy from 1991 to 2007Contraception20097939339619341853
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TadesseEWamstekerKEvaluation of 24 patients with IUD-related problemsEur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol19851937413979653
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• medipay.de [homepage on the Internet]Medipay Available from: https://www.medipay.de/Accessed December 3, 2014
   Google Scholar
• XiongXBuekensPWollastEIUD use and risk of ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis of case-control studiesContraception199552123348521711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BahamondesLMansourDFialaCKaunitzAMGemzell-DanielssonKPractical advice for avoidance of pain associated with insertion of intrauterine contraceptivesJ Fam Plann Reprod Health Care201440546024076534
   PubMedGoogle Scholar