Asymptomatic uterine perforation and IUD migration to the broad ligament: A case report.

RATIONALE: Uterine perforation is a serious complication of intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) placement. However, as complete uterine perforation and extrauterine migration may remain asymptomatic, thorough localization of the IUD is important prior to reinsertion. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 33-year-old patient who has had 4 IUD insertions, wherein the location of the first IUD (inserted 14 years ago) was not identified prior to reinsertion and replacement of the subsequent three. She presented to hospital with a 6-month history of abdominal pain. Pelvic ultrasonography (US), radiography, hysteroscopy and laparoscopy examinations confirmed that a retained migrated IUD in the right broad ligament. DIAGNOSIS: Uterine perforation, IUD migration to the broad ligament. INTERVENTIONS: The patient underwent hysteroscopy and laparoscopy. OUTCOMES: Both IUDs were successfully removed without any complications.

Development and validation of a novel scoring system to predict the risk of uterine perforation during intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a novel scoring system for predicting the risk of uterine perforation during brachytherapy (BT) in cervical cancer patients and to stratify patients based on this score to guide the use of ultrasound guidance during BT. METHODS: Fifty patients with uterine perforation during BT between January 2018 and December 2020 were included. Common reasons for perforation were identified and a scoring system was developed. This was then applied to a cohort of 50 patients without perforation. The 2 cohorts were compared using the χ² test. To validate the scoring system, all newly diagnosed patients who underwent BT in 2021 were scored, and analysed using χ² test and receiver operator characteristic curves. RESULTS: The mean score in the test cohort was 10.16 (range=7-14) and 5.92 (range=5-8) for patients with and without perforation. In the validation cohort, the mean score was 6.9 (range=5-10) and 9.33 (range=7-11) for those with and without perforation. Patients with a score <8 were classified as low risk, while those with a score ≥8 were classified as high risk. Among the criteria evaluated for validation, response to external beam radiotherapy, uterine position, cervico-uterine angle (uterine flexion), identification of cervical os at BT assessment, and the total score were significant predictors, while previous history of perforation, uterine length, and additional uterine anomaly were not. CONCLUSION: The novel scoring system is an effective predictor of perforation risk during BT. Implementing this during BT assessment can optimize the need for ultrasound guidance during the procedure.

Coincidental spontaneous perforation of the small intestine following operative hysteroscopy: A case report.

OBJECTIVE: Operative hysteroscopy is a common gynecologic procedure, but it carries the risk of complications. Spontaneous small intestine perforation is rare and fatal, especially in young adults. We present a spontaneous small intestine perforation after operative hysteroscopy with mimicking sign of uterine perforation after operation hysteroscopy. CASE REPORT: A 30-year-old nulligravida woman underwent Truclear® hysteroscopic polypectomy in the morning in LMD. She suffered from upper abdominal pain in the afternoon. Subsequently, progressive abdominal distention and imminent shock occurred the next morning. Initially, it was supposed to be a case of uterine rupture with internal bleeding. She was transferred to the emergency department of our hospital. Complete biochemistry data and abdominal CT were performed. The CT revealed pneumoperitoneum and ascites. Emergent laparoscopy was arranged. The abdominal cavity was full of intestinal fluid and the myomatous uterus was intact. The surgeon performed a laparotomy, two sites of spontaneous perforation of the small intestine were detected. The patient underwent laparotomic segmental resection and anastomosis and was discharged 14 days after surgery without incident. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of uterine perforation during hysteroscopy is up to 1.6%. The use of non-thermal intrauterine morcellator device (Truclear®) has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of perforation and thermal injury. As this case highlights, we suspected the possibility of uterine perforation immediately after hysteroscopic surgery. However, it happened to be rare spontaneous perforation of small bowel. The patient recovered well after timely transfer and management. Hysteroscopy is a very common procedure in gynecologic clinics, but even relatively safe intrauterine morcellator devices carry risk of complications. As a healthcare provider, we should beware of any comorbidity, for sometimes it would be catastrophic.

Risks of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion Associated With Intrauterine Devices.

OBJECTIVE: The APEX-IUD (Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices) study evaluated the association of postpartum timing of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, breastfeeding, heavy menstrual bleeding, and IUD type (levonorgestrel-releasing vs copper) with risks of uterine perforation and IUD expulsion in usual clinical practice. We summarize the clinically important findings to inform counseling and shared decision making. METHODS: APEX-IUD was a real-world (using U.S. health care data) retrospective cohort study of individuals aged 50 years and younger with IUD insertions between 2001 and 2018 and with electronic health record data. Cumulative incidences of uterine perforation and IUD expulsion were calculated. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs were estimated from proportional hazards models with control of confounding. RESULTS: Among the study population of 326,658, absolute risk of uterine perforation was low overall (cumulative incidence, 0.21% [95% CI 0.19-0.23%] at 1 year and 0.61% [95% CI 0.56-0.66% at 5 years]) but was elevated for IUDs inserted during time intervals within 1 year postpartum, particularly among those between 4 days and 6 weeks postpartum (aHR 6.71, 95% CI 4.80-9.38), relative to nonpostpartum insertions. Among postpartum insertions, IUD expulsion risk was greatest for insertions in the immediate postpartum period (0-3 days after delivery) compared with nonpostpartum (aHR 5.34, 95% CI 4.47-6.39). Postpartum individuals who were breastfeeding had a slightly elevated risk of perforation and lowered risk of expulsion than those not breastfeeding. Among nonpostpartum individuals, those with a heavy menstrual bleeding diagnosis were at greater risk of expulsion than those without (aHR 2.84, 95% CI 2.66-3.03); heavy menstrual bleeding also was associated with a slightly elevated perforation risk. There was a slightly elevated perforation risk and slightly lower expulsion risk associated with levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs compared with copper IUDs. CONCLUSION: Absolute risk of adverse outcomes with IUD insertion is low. Clinicians should be aware of the differences in risks of uterine perforation and expulsion associated with IUD insertion during specific postpartum time periods and with a heavy menstrual bleeding diagnosis. This information should be incorporated into counseling and decision making for patients considering IUD insertion. FUNDING SOURCE: Bayer AG. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU PAS register, EUPAS33461.

Intraperitoneally Retained Contraceptive Device After Uterine Perforation: A Case Report.

A 29-year-old parous woman with a history of a T-shaped copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion presented 8 months later with a complaint of the contraceptive device being missing. Computed tomography with contrast turned out to be superior to the combined abdominal and pelvic X-ray and transvaginal ultrasound in providing the detailed extrauterine location of the device between the urinary bladder and uterus. A laparoscopy was successful in the atraumatic freeing of the IUD from omental and bladder adhesions, and in its final removal.

Use of uterine manipulator and uterine perforation in minimally invasive endometrial cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Safety of the uterine manipulator (UM) within endometrial cancer (EC) surgery is being questioned. Its use might be one of the issues for potential tumor dissemination during the procedure, especially in the case of uterine perforation (UP). No prospective data on this surgical complication, nor on the oncological consequences exist. The aim of this study was to assess the rate of UP while using UM when performing surgery for EC and the impact of UP on the choice of adjuvant treatment. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-center cohort study from November 2018 to February 2022, considering all EC cases surgically treated by a minimally invasive approach with the help of a UM. Demographic, preoperative, postoperative and adjuvant treatment corresponding to the included patients were collected and comparatively analyzed according to the absence or presence of a UP. RESULTS: Of the 82 patients included in the study, 9 UPs (11%) occurred during surgery. There was no significant difference in demographics and disease characteristics at diagnosis that may have induced UP. The type of UM used or the approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) did not influence the occurrence of UP (p = 0.44). No positive peritoneal cytology was found post hysterectomy. There was a statistically significantly higher rate of lymph-vascular space invasion within the perforation group, 67% vs. 25% in the no perforation group, p = 0.02. Two out of nine (22%) adjuvant therapies were changed because of UP. The median follow-up time for patients was 7.6 months (range 0.5-33.1 months). No recurrence was found in the UP group. CONCLUSION: Our study found a uterine perforation rate of 11%. This information needs to be further integrated to consider the usefulness of MU for EC surgery.

Complete perforated bladder from intrauterine devices: A case series report from a nationwide monitoring system.

AIM: Complete perforation of the bladder caused by an intrauterine device (IUD) is rare. This study examined the characteristics of patients associated with IUD-related bladder perforation and evaluated the relationship between mislocated IUDs and their potential complications. METHODS: From October 2005 to December 2021, 13 reports regarding complete perforations to the bladder by IUDs were retrieved from the National Contraceptives Adverse Reaction Monitoring System of China. The clinical features of these cases were analyzed. RESULTS: The median patient age was 30 (range, 27-46) years. There were four cases (4/13, 30.8%) with IUDs placed during lactation, one case (1/13, 7.7%) with an IUD placed after medical abortion, and eight cases (8/13, 61.5%) placed after menstruation. Seven cases (7/13, 53.9%) were first-time IUD users. The median duration of IUD placement was 47 (range, 1-145) months. Unexpected pregnancy was reported in five cases (5/13, 38.5%). Six cases (6/13, 46.2%) reported bladder stones with varying degrees of abdominal pain or urinary tract infection. Removal methods included laparotomy (four cases), cystoscopy (four cases), laparoscopy (two cases), laparoscopy combined with cystoscopy (two cases), and laparotomy after cystoscopy (one case). All IUDs were successfully removed. CONCLUSIONS: Complete perforation to the bladder by IUDs is a rare adverse event. Regular follow-up is required after the placement of IUDs. The possibility of uterine perforation should be investigated if IUD users encounter persistent lower abdominal pain or urinary tract infection.

Intraperitoneally displaced intrauterine device.

Intra-abdominal displacement of an intrauterine device (IUD) is a rare but serious complication. This is a case report of a 44-year-old woman who was referred to a surgical department with intermittent abdominal pain. Gynaecological examination and ultrasound failed to identify the patient's IUD. An abdominal CT scan confirmed the diagnosis of the intra-abdominally migrated IUD and the device was extracted by laparoscopy. Surgical removal of the migrating IUD is recommended to prevent long-term complications such as intra-abdominal adhesions, organ perforation, and fistula formation.

[Endoscopic removal of intrauterine device perforating the sigmoid colon: case report]. / Retrait endoscopique d'un dispositif intra-utérin perforant le côlon sigmoïde: à propos d'un cas.

Intrauterine device (IUD) is the mainstay of family planning methods in developing countries. However, it is associated with severe complications such as bleeding, perforation and migration to adjacent organs. Although perforation of the uterus is not rare, migration to the sigmoid colon is exceptional. We here report a case of IUD migration into sigmoid colon; this was removed via low endoscopy. The study involved a 45-year-old woman using an IUD who presented with pelvic pain associated with a feeling of pelvic heaviness 6 years later of insertion. Clinical examination was without abnormalities, and computed tomography (CT) scan showed the IUD embedded in the sigmoid colon wall. Diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy was performed, which objectified IUD-related intestinal perforation. IUD was partially embedded in the sigmoid colon wall and couldn't be removed. The device was removed during colonoscopy by diathermy loop excision (15 mm in diameter).

Uterine perforation during intrauterine procedures and its management.

OBJECTIVE: Uterine perforation is a potential, not rare complication of all intrauterine procedures and may be associated with injury of surrounding organs and structures. The incidence, risk factors, possible prevention, dia-gnosis, management and impact on future reproduction is reviewed here. METHODS: Systematic review of available sources on the topic was carried out using the PubMed database and textbooks of Czech authors. CONCLUSION: Some risk factors that make access to the uterine cavity difficult may be prevented, however, others remain unpreventable. For patients in whom the perforation occurred during sondage, dilatation or insertion of blunt and cold instrument, without significant bleeding and who are hemodynamically stable, observation is recommended rather than immediate abdominal exploration. The exception are young women planning pregnancy in whom endoscopic suture is indicated. Abdominal exploration is required in patients who have been injured by electrosurgical or sharp device, laser, vacuum curette, who are hemodynamically unstable or show signs of severe bleeding or visceral injury.

Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Reports of perforation risk related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted immediately post partum and among non-post-partum individuals are scarce, and previous studies with only 12-month follow-ups underestimate the risk. Breastfeeding at IUD insertion and insertion within 36 weeks post partum have been associated with increased risk of uterine perforation. The aim of these analyses was to compare the incidence and risks of IUD-related uterine perforations by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion, and among post-partum individuals, to assess the impact of breastfeeding on these outcomes. METHODS: We did a multisite cohort study in the USA, using electronic health records (EHR). Study sites were three health-care systems and a site that used data from a health-care information exchange. The study population included individuals who were aged 50 years or younger and had an IUD insertion between Jan 1, 2001, and April 30, 2018. Individuals were excluded if they had not been in the health-care system for at least 12 months before IUD insertion. The primary outcome for this analysis was any IUD-related uterine perforation diagnosis for the first IUD insertion in this time period. Both complete and partial IUD-related perforations were identified. Chart abstraction was done to validate EHR-based algorithms or confirm perforations. The crude rate and cumulative incidence of uterine perforation were evaluated by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion in the full cohort, and by breastfeeding status in a subcohort of post-partum individuals. Cox models estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). FINDINGS: Data from 326 658 individuals in the full cohort and 94 817 individuals in the post-partum subcohort were analysed. In the full cohort, we identified 1008 uterine perforations (51·2% complete), with the 5-year cumulative incidence being the lowest in the non-post-partum group (0·29%, 95% CI 0·26-0·34). The aHR for the post-partum interval relative to non-post partum ranged from 2·73 (95% CI 1·33-5·63; 0 to 3 days post partum) to 6·71 (4·80-9·38; 4 days to ≤6 weeks post partum). The post-partum subcohort of individuals with breastfeeding information had 673 uterine perforations (62% complete), with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 1·37% (95% CI 1·24-1·52) and an increased risk with breastfeeding (aHR 1·37, 95% CI 1·12-1·66). INTERPRETATION: Although the risk for uterine perforation with IUD insertion 4 days to 6 weeks or less post partum is nearly seven times that of insertion non-post partum, perforation remains an incredibly rare event for all clinical time points. Despite a slight increased risk of perforation with breastfeeding at IUD insertion, the benefits of breastfeeding and effective contraception generally outweigh risks and should have little clinical impact. Therefore, IUD insertion timing should be based on individual desire for IUD contraception and patient convenience to assure an IUD insertion can occur. Careful follow-up of individuals at higher risk of uterine perforation is warranted. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

Association between intrauterine device type and risk of perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices, including levonorgestrel-releasing and copper devices, are highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptives. The potential risks associated with intrauterine devices are low and include uterine perforation and device expulsion. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing devices vs copper devices in clinical practice in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: The Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study was a retrospective cohort study of women aged ≤50 years with an intrauterine device insertion during 2001 to 2018 and information on intrauterine device type and patient and medical characteristics. Of note, 4 research sites with access to electronic health records contributed data for the study: 3 Kaiser Permanente-integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and 1 healthcare system using data from a healthcare information exchange in Indiana (Regenstrief Institute). Perforation was classified as any extension of the device into or through the myometrium. Expulsion was classified as complete (not visible in the uterus or abdomen or patient reported) or partial (any portion in the cervix or malpositioned). We estimated the crude incidence rates and crude cumulative incidence by intrauterine device type. The risks of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices vs copper intrauterine devices were estimated using Cox proportional-hazards regression with propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Among 322,898 women included in this analysis, the incidence rates of perforation per 1000 person-years were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.53-1.76) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.48) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.24) and 0.63% (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.68) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 0.16% (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.20) and 0.55% (95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.68) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. The incidence rates of expulsion per 1000 person-years were 13.95 (95% confidence interval, 13.63-14.28) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 14.08 (95% confidence interval, 13.44-14.75) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.24-2.36) and 4.52% (95% confidence interval, 4.40-4.65) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.18-2.44) and 4.82 (95% confidence interval, 4.56-5.10) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. Comparing levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices with copper intrauterine devices, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% confidence intervals, 1.25-1.78) for perforation and 0.69 (95% confidence intervals, 0.65-0.73) for expulsion. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for potential confounders, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices were associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation and a decreased risk of expulsion relative to copper intrauterine devices. Given that the absolute numbers of these events are low in both groups, these differences may not be clinically meaningful.

Association between menorrhagia and risk of intrauterine device-related uterine perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices are effective instruments for contraception, and 1 levonorgestrel-releasing device is also indicated for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia). OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of intrauterine device expulsion and uterine perforation in women with and without a diagnosis of menorrhagia within the first 12 months before device insertion STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in 3 integrated healthcare systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and a healthcare information exchange (Regenstrief Institute) in the United States using electronic health records. Nonpostpartum women aged ≤50 years with intrauterine device (eg, levonorgestrel or copper) insertions from 2001 to 2018 and without a delivery in the previous 12 months were studied in this analysis. Recent menorrhagia diagnosis (ie, recorded ≤12 months before insertion) was ascertained from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The study outcomes, viz, device expulsion and device-related uterine perforation (complete or partial), were ascertained from electronic medical records and validated in the data sources. The cumulative incidence and crude incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the crude and adjusted hazard ratios using propensity score overlap weighting (13-16 variables) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Among 228,834 nonpostpartum women, the mean age was 33.1 years, 44.4% of them were White, and 31,600 (13.8%) had a recent menorrhagia diagnosis. Most women had a levonorgestrel-releasing device (96.4% of those with and 78.2% of those without a menorrhagia diagnosis). Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis were likely to be older, obese, and have dysmenorrhea or fibroids. Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis had a higher intrauterine device-expulsion rate (40.01 vs 10.92 per 1000 person-years) than those without, especially evident in the first few months after insertion. Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis had a higher cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of expulsion (7.00% [6.70-7.32] at 1 year and 12.03% [11.52-12.55] at 5 years) vs those without (1.77% [1.70-1.84] at 1 year and 3.69% [3.56-3.83] at 5 years). The risk of expulsion was increased for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs for those without (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.84 [95% confidence interval, 2.66-3.03]). The perforation rate was low overall (<1/1000 person-years) but higher in women with a diagnosis of menorrhagia vs in those without (0.98 vs 0.63 per 1000 person-years). The cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of uterine perforation was slightly higher for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis (0.09% [0.06-0.14] at 1 year and 0.39% [0.29-0.53] at 5 years) than those without it (0.07% [0.06-0.08] at 1 year and 0.28% [0.24-0.33] at 5 years). The risk of perforation was slightly increased in women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs in those without (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.13). CONCLUSION: The risk of expulsion is significantly higher in women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia. Patient education and counseling regarding the potential expulsion risk is recommended at insertion. The absolute risk of perforation for women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia is very low. The increased expulsion and perforation rates observed are likely because of causal factors of menorrhagia.

Post-Placental Intrauterine Device Insertion in Brazilian Adolescents: Clinical Outcomes at 12 Months.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability, expulsion and continuation rates, satisfaction, and complications associated with post-placental intrauterine device insertion (PPIUDI) in Brazilian adolescents DESIGN: Prospective cohort SETTING: A single public, tertiary teaching hospital PARTICIPANTS: Adolescents (≤ 19 years) giving birth by vaginal delivery or cesarean section INTERVENTION: PPIUDI MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were PPIUDI acceptability, expulsion, continuation, and user satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were changes in menstrual bleeding and pain, infection, uterine perforation, and repeat pregnancy up to 12 months after PPIUDI. RESULTS: Of 1710 adolescents who delivered during the study period, 294 accepted PPIUDI (acceptability 17.2%). There were no cases of infection or uterine perforation among the 91 adolescents who completed the 12-month follow-up. Overall expulsion rate was 28.6%, and most cases (54%) occurred in the first 6 weeks after insertion. At 12 months, 85.7% of users were satisfied with the method, and continuation rate was 69.2%. At the end of 12 months, there were no repeat pregnancies among the adolescents who remained with the device in place. CONCLUSION: PPIUDI can be an effective and safe method to reduce repeat unplanned pregnancies in adolescents who have just given birth.

Complications after interval postpartum intrauterine device insertion.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, up to 57% of women report resumption of sexual activity by the 6 week postpartum visit. Effective contraception should be addressed and provided at that time, to avoid unintended pregnancies and optimize interpregnancy intervals. Long-acting reversible contraceptives are the most effective forms of reversible contraception and are increasingly popular during the postpartum period. However, timing of postpartum intrauterine device (IUD) placement varies among providers and many delay insertion due to concerns for uterine perforation or expulsion of the IUD. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate uterine perforation and expulsion rates with IUD insertion at 4-8 weeks postpartum vs 9-36 weeks postpartum. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic medical record from 2010 to 2016. We calculated the proportion of perforations and expulsions with IUD insertion at 4-8 weeks vs 9-36 weeks postpartum. Our primary outcome was the perforation rate. Secondarily, we evaluated the expulsion rate. For our minimum sample size calculation, to detect a difference of 0.5% in the perforation rate, with a baseline perforation rate of 0.5% for the 9-36 week postpartum IUD placement group, 80% power, and 5% alpha error rate, we would need at least 4221 participants per group, 8442 in total. RESULTS: A total of 24,959 patients met inclusion criteria (n=13,180 in the 4-8 week group, n=11,777 in the 9-36 week group). Of 430 patients with a confirmed complication, 157 uterine perforations and 273 IUD expulsions were identified. Perforation rates were significantly higher with placement at 4-8 weeks than at 9-36 weeks (0.78% vs 0.46%; P=.001). After adjusting for race and ethnicity, breastfeeding, IUD type, provider type, parity, most recent delivery, and body mass index, the odds of perforation remained higher with placement at 4-8 weeks than at 9-36 weeks (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.89). Our Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that the risk of uterine perforation remained elevated until approximately 22-23 weeks postpartum. Expulsion rates were similar between the 2 groups (1.02 vs 1.17; P=.52). CONCLUSION: Uterine perforation after interval postpartum IUD insertion is greater at 4-8 weeks than at 9-36 weeks, although perforation rates remain low at <1%. Expulsion rates did not differ between the groups. Because overall rates of uterine perforation are low, women can safely be offered IUDs at any interval beyond 4 weeks with minimal concern for perforation.

Intrauterine devices migrated into the bladder: two case reports and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices (IUD) are widely used all over the world. One of the most serious complications is uterine perforation, and it is very rare for the IUD to penetrate the bladder after perforation. Here we report two cases of IUD migration into the bladder, and review the literature to analyze the possible causes and solutions of such complications. CASE PRESENTATION: Case NO. 1 is a 37-year-old female who presented lower urinary tract symptoms for a year. Cystoscopy showed that a strip of metal penetrated into the bladder, and the surface was covered with stones. The patient underwent cystotomy and foreign body removal under general anesthesia. Case NO. 2 is a 46-year-old woman who previously inserted an IUD in 1998, but she had an unexpected pregnancy in 1999. Her doctor believed that "the IUD had spontaneously expulsed" and a new IUD was inserted after her pregnancy was terminated. Her CT scan showed an IUD on the left side of the bladder and another IUD in the uterus. Her foreign body was removed by cystotomy. CONCLUSION: Patients with IUD should be suggested to check the device regularly, and those who with a missed IUD have to rule out the possibility of IUD migration. For patients with IUD combined with lower urinary tract symptoms, it is necessary to be aware of whether IUD perforation affects the bladder.