Sirine Abdelkefi*, Oussema Bardaa, Rahma Ben Msarra, Fatma Khanfir, Fatma Chaker, Mariem Abbes, Khaled Trigui, Mohamed Derbel and Kais Chaaben

Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hedi Chaker University Hospital, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia

*Corresponding Author: Sirine Abdelkefi, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hedi Chaker University Hospital, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia.

Received: January 28, 2025; Published: February 24, 2025

Abstract

Introduction: The intrauterine device (IUD) is one of the most reliable and widespread contraceptive methods worldwide. However, it can involve infection, expulsion, perforation, and migration risks.

Clinical Case: We present a case in which an IUD was displaced into the abdominal cavity of a woman menopause for 3 years and had an IUD for 17 years without removing it.

The patient consulted the Obstetrics and Gynecology department for an ultrasound scan to monitor the IUD. The ultrasound showed a uterus with normal echostructure, but the IUD was only partially visible. On admission, the patient was conscious and cooperative, with normally colored conjunctivae and a soft, depressed abdomen.

On vaginal examination, the IUD thread was not detected. The patient then underwent an initial diagnostic hysteroscopy, revealing a uterine cavity with hyperaemic petechial lesions suggestive of chronic endometritis, with only the IUD wire visible (the IUD stem was not visible), inserted in the anterolateral uterine wall.

The decision was made to complete the operation with a diagnostic laparoscopy. Exploration showed a uterus of normal size and echostructure, and two adnexa with no abnormalities. Liberation of the appendicular tip revealed two rigid structures protruding from the tip and embedded in the uterine fundus: this was an IUD that had migrated inside the appendix An appendectomy was performed and the IUD was completely removed.

Conclusion: The IUD is an effective contraceptive method and insertion is a relatively simple medical procedure requiring minimal knowledge and experience.

Keywords:IUD; Intraappendicular; Migration; Complication

References

1. Onalan G., et al. “Extrauterine Displaced Intrauterine Devices: When Should They Be Surgically Removed?” Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology4 (2009): 415‑416.
2. Masson E. “Contraception par dispositif intra-utérin” (2024).
3. Andersson K., et al. “Perforations with intrauterine devices: Report from a Swedish survey”. Contraception 4 (1998): 251‑255.
4. Benkhraba K., et al. “Actinomycose digestive: Trois cas et revue de la literature”. Gastroentérologie Clinical Biology 5 (2006): 775‑778.
5. Lachiri B., et al. “Le stérilet migrateur: à propos de deux cas et revue de la literature”. Pan African Medical Journal 19 (2014): 361.
6. Zakin D., et al. “Complete and Partial Uterine Perforation and Embedding following Insertion of Intrauterine Devices. II. Diagnostic Methods, Prevention, and Management”. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 8 (1981): 401.
7. Feghali J., et al. “Migration intravésicale d’un dispositif intra-utérin Cas clinique et revue de la literature”. The Lebanese Medical Journal 64 (2016).
8. Brar R., et al. “A Forgotten Migrated Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Is Not Always Innocent: A Case Report”. Case Report Medicine1 (2010): 740642.
9. FERCHIOU M., et al. “Traitement cœlio-chirurgical du stérilet intraperitoneal”. Trait Cœlio-Chir Stérilet Intrapéritonéal10 (1995): 409‑411.

Citation

Citation: Sirine Abdelkefi., et al “Intra-Appendicular Migrating IUD: A Case Report". Acta Scientific Clinical Case Reports 6.3 (2025): 48-50.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2025 Sirine Abdelkefi., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.