Abstract

  Insertion of an intrauterine device is a common gesture in gynecological practice. This gesture is simple and reproducible. However it can leads to serious complications such as uterine perforation but also migrate into the abdominal cavity to result in an adjacent organ injury such as the bladder and inlets. If migration IUD is into the bladder, dysuria, and chronic pelvic pain are the found symptoms. Faced with a suspected ectopic IUD, pelvic ultrasound examination is the first line followed by the X-ray of abdomen required. When migration is suspected, hysteroscopy and cystoscopy allows not only to diagnose but also to achieve the removal of the IUD. We report a case of migration of two IUDs both removed by hysteroscopy and cystoscopy at the same patient.

Keywords: IUD; Migration; Complication; Hysteroscopy

References

1. Sivin IB. “State-of-the-art on non-hormonal methods of contraception: III. Intra uterine devices”. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care 15 (2010): 96-112.
2. WHO. “Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use”. 4th ed. Geneva: WHO (2009).
3. Zakin D., et al. “Complete and partial perforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterine devices. I. Classification, complications, mechanism, incidence, and missing string”. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 36 (1981): 335-353.
4. Mosher WD and Pratt WF. “Contraceptive use in the United States, 1973-1988”. Patient Education and Counseling 16.2 (1990): 163-172.
5. Oruç S., et al. “Changes in distribution patterns of integrins in endometrium in copper T380 intrauterine device users”. Acta Histochemica 107.2 (2005): 95-103.
6. Tunçay YA., et al. “Transuterine migration as a complication of intrauterine contraceptive devices: six case reports”. European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care 9.3 (2004): 194-200.
7. 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 36.8 (1981): 401-417.
8. Richter R. “Ein Mittel zur Verhütung der Konzeption [A means of preventing conception]”. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 35 (1909): 1525.
9. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World contraceptive patterns 2013. New York, NY: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2015). 
10. Gräfenberg E. “Die intrauterine methode der konzeptionverhütung. In: Haire N, editor. Proceedings of the Third World League for Sexual Reform Congress, London 1929”. London, UK: Kegan Paul, Trench Turner and Company (1929): 166-175.
11. Harrison-Woolrych M., et al. “Uterine perforation on intrauterine device insertion: is the incidence higher than previously reported?” Contraception 67 (2003): 53-56.
12. Van Grootheest K., et al. “Uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device”. Drug Safety 34 (2011): 83-88.
13. Kaislasuo J., et al. “Uterine perforation caused by intrauterine devices: clinical course and treatment”. Human Reproduction 28 (2013): 1546-1551.
14. Kho KA and Chamsy DJ. “Perforated intraperitoneal intrauterine contraceptive devices: diagnosis, management and clinical outcomes”. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 21 (2014): 596-601.
15. De Kroon CD., et al. “The value of transvaginal ultrasound to monitor the position of an intrauterine device after insertion. A technology assessment study”. Human Reproduction 18 (2003): 2323-2327.
16. Golightly E and Gebbie AE. “Low-lying or malpositioned intrauterine devices and systems”. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care 40 (2014): 108-112.
17. Dias T., et al. “Use of ultrasound in predicting success of intrauterine contraceptive device insertion immediately after delivery”. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 46 (2015):104-108.
18. Schoenfeld A., et al. “Bladder perforation by an intrauterine device”. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 19.3 (1991): 175-177.
19. McNamara M., et al. “Case reports. Copper-7 perforation of the uterus and urinary bladder with calculus formation—Sonographic demonstration”. British Journal of Radiology 58.690 (1985): 558-559.
20. Güvel S., et al. “Bladder stones around a migrated and missed intrauterine contraceptive device”. International Journal of Urology 8.2 (2001): 78-79.
21. Rowlands S. “Lost IUD penetrating bladder wall”. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care 36 (2010): 255.
22. Markovitch O., et al. “Extra-uterine mislocated IUD: Is surgical removal mandatory?” Contraception 66 (2002): 105-108.
23. Ozcelik B., et al. “Differential diagnosis of intrauterine device migrating to bladder using radiographic image of calculus formation and review of literature”. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 108 (2003): 94-97.
24. Mücahit Kart., et al. “Intravesical Migration of Missed Intrauterine Device Associated with Stone Formation: A Case Report and Review of the Literature”. Case Reports in Urology (2015): 581697.
25. El-Hefnawy AS., et al. “Urinary complications of migrated intrauterine contraceptive device”. International Urogynecology Journal 19 (2008): 241-245. 
26. Singh I. “Intravesical Cu-T migration: an atypical and infrequent cause of vesical calculus”. International Urology and Nephrology 39 (2007): 457-459.

Citation

Citation: Thera T., et al. “Migration of Two IUDS, with One Intra Bladder, Removed by Hysteroscopy and Cystoscopy: A Case Report". Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 4.2 (2020): 165-168.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 Thera T., 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.