Colonoscopic removal of an intrauterine device with rectal perforation: A case report.

RATIONALE: The intrauterine device is one of the effective, safe, convenient, economical, and reversible contraceptive methods. Although its contraceptive effect is definite, some female patients may experience complications such as expulsion, bleeding, and pregnancy with the device in place. Rectal perforation is one of the rare and serious complications, which can lead to complications such as abdominal infection and intestinal adhesions, severely affecting the quality of life of patients. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 34-year-old female was sent to the Department of Gastroenterology with noticeable left lower quadrant abdominal pain. She had presented with abdominal discomfort and anal tenesmus 1 year earlier. Two months ago, her abdominal pain had gradually worsened and she was presented to our hospital. DIAGNOSES: Investigations, including colonoscopy and computed tomography scan, had revealed an intrauterine device migrated and perforated into the rectum. INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES: The patient underwent successful colonoscopic removal of the intrauterine device. She recovered well after the treatment. LESSONS: This case proves that endoscopic therapy can be considered the preferred method for removing intrauterine devices displaced into the digestive tract lumen.

Ease of removal of malpositioned intrauterine devices: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare removal timing, techniques, and success of malpositioned intrauterine device (IUDs) to nonmalpositioned IUDs. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of IUD users with ultrasound performed between July 2014 and July 2017 within one medical system. We used Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare clinical characteristics and IUD removal details between patients with malpositioned and nonmalpositioned IUDs. RESULTS: Of 1759 ultrasounds reporting the presence of an IUD, 436 described IUD malposition. Of these, 150 described the IUD as embedded and 16 as partially perforated. IUDs were more likely to be removed and removed sooner for patients with malpositioned compared with nonmalpositioned IUDs (281/436 vs 545/1323, p < 0.001 and median 17 days vs 236 days from the index ultrasound, p < 0.001). Most IUDs, malpositioned and nonmalpositioned, were removed on the first attempt (82%, 85%), by a generalist obstetrician and gynecologist (75%, 70%), using a ring forceps (73%, 65%). Most embedded and partially perforated IUDs were removed (68%, 69%), using a ring forceps (59%, 67%), on the first attempt (84%, 91%). CONCLUSIONS: Malpositioned IUDs were more likely to be removed and removed sooner than nonmalpositioned IUDs. Most IUDs, even IUDs labeled as partially perforated or embedded, were removed by a generalist obstetrician and gynecologist, using ring forceps, on first attempt. IMPLICATIONS: Ultrasound findings of IUD malposition are not associated with difficult IUD removal.

Bladder Stone Formation due to Intravesical Migration of the Intrauterine Device: A Report of 2 Cases.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 5% of bladder stones occur in women and are usually associated with foreign bodies or urinary stasis. Spontaneous migration of the intrauterine device (IUD) into the bladder is a rare complication. In this report, we present 2 cases of migrated IUD who had undergone surgery at our clinic due to bladder stones. CASE PRESENTATIONS: We detected migrated IUDs into the bladder in 2 female patients, aged 37 and 56 years, who presented with lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary tract infection. In the first case, endoscopic cystolithotripsy was performed, and the IUD was removed without complications. In the second case, the IUD could not be removed endoscopically since it had fractionally invaded the bladder wall, and the IUD was removed without complications by performing an open cystolithotomy. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive gynecological history should be taken from every female patient presenting with recurrent urinary tract infections and lower urinary tract symptoms. If these patients have a history of IUD placement, the possibility of the intravesical migration of this device should be kept in mind.

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.

Intrauterine device migration into the bladder leading to stones formation.

An intrauterine device (IUD) is a popular method of contraception mainly used in developing countries. Perforation is one of the most serious but a rare complication secondary to the insertion of an IUD, while perforation into the intravesical organs such as the bladder is even more rare. A 30-year-old multipara in early 30s, with two previous caesarean sections (CS) and one curettage, was found to have her IUD puncturing the bladder during a cystoscopy procedure to remove her bladder stones. Transvesical migration of an IUD is an uncommon complication with a high rate of calculi formation, which is thought to be caused by the IUD's lithogenic potential. Imaging approaches such as ultrasound and pelvic X-rays are considered imperative in the accurate diagnosis. Any migrated IUD should be removed regardless of location. Prompt and continual monitoring of women using an IUD is essential and in a case where the IUD has migrated, the removal using the endoscopic approach is a safe and effective method.

[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).

Fístula utero-yeyunal secundaria a migración de dispositivo intrauterino: reporte de un caso / Utero-jejunal fistula secondary to intrauterine device migration: a case report

RESUMEN El dispositivo intrauterino (DIU) es un método anticonceptivo muy popular, eficaz y seguro. Aunque posee complicaciones bien descritas como es la migración, la que puede ser a otros órganos dentro de la cavidad peritoneal. La fístula uteroyeyunal es un evento clínico poco frecuente, pero de gran repercusión si no es diagnosticada y tratada. Se presenta el caso de una paciente usuaria de DIU, el que migra a cavidad abdominal, con posterior formación de fístula uteroyeyunal.

ABSTRACT The intrauterine device is a popular, efficient and safe contraceptive. Although it has some well described complications, such as migration, which may be to the different organs inside of the peritoneal cavity. The uterus-jejunal fistula is a rare clinical event, but with great repercussion if it is not well assessed and treated properly. We present the clinical case of a patient with a migrated intrauterine device and a fistula uterus-jejunal formation.

[Intravascular migration of a contraceptive implant]. / Intravasculaire migratie van een hormoonimplantaat.

BACKGROUND: The Implanon NXT is a commonly used contraceptive. Incorrect localization of the implant can cause complications. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 41-year-old woman is seen in the gynaecology outpatient clinic with a request to remove a recently placed Implanon NXT because of worsening mood symptoms. The implant can't be found on physical and ultrasound examination. Duringsurgicalexplorationthe implant is not found at theinsertion site' By means of X-ray scanning the implant becomes visible around the humeral head. The implant appears to be located in the cephalic vein and is subsequently removed. CONCLUSION: In case of a referral due to because of worsening mood symptoms after an Implanon NXT exchange, it is possible that the implant is localized incorrectly. It is recommended to use additional imaging before performing surgical exploration. Furthermore, it is important to insert the Implanon NXT according to the supplied instructions to prevent this complication.

[A woman with abdominal pain after insertion of an intra-uterine device]. / Een vrouw met buikpijn na insertie van een spiraaltje.

A clinical picture of a 35-year-old woman presented at the gynaecology department with a positive pregnancy test even though she had an intra-uterine device (IUD) inserted three months previously. During laparoscopy the Ballerina IUD turns out to be located in the appendix.

Dislocated intrauterine devices: clinical presentations, diagnosis and management.

OBJECTIVE: Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are globally one of the most popular methods of contraception. Uterine perforation is one of the most significant complications of IUD use and commonly occurs at the time of IUD insertion rather than presenting as delayed migration. This paper reports a series of 13 cases of displaced IUDs requiring retrieval by laparoscopy or laparotomy. All the IUDs were copper bearing and most perforations occurred immediately after IUD insertion. CASES: In two patients with sigmoid colon injury and IUD penetration of the appendix, laparoscopic management had failed and laparotomy was necessary owing to severe obliteration of the pelvic cavity. In one patient laparotomy was the preferred surgical approach owing to acute bowel perforation. In the remaining patients, the displaced devices were successfully removed by laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: Uterine perforation and IUD migration to the organs in the abdominopelvic cavity are serious complications of IUD insertion and can be successfully managed by laparoscopy, or by laparotomy in the presence of severe pelvic adhesions or unexpected complications.

A 47-Year-Old Woman with Gastric Transmigration of an Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Managed by Laparoscopic Wedge Gastric Resection.

BACKGROUND Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUCD) are commonly used. Although IUCD use is considered safe, one adverse event is uterine perforation and its migration into surrounding organs. Migrations into the urinary bladder and the intestine have been sometimes reported. We here report a very rare case in which an IUCD migrated into the stomach; gastric endoscopy incidentally revealed the IUCD half embedded and half in the gastric lumen. To our knowledge, this is the second report ever of IUCD migration into the stomach. CASE REPORT A 47-year-old woman with BMI 36.2 visited us as a candidate for an intragastric balloon to reduce her weight. An IUCD was inserted 18 years ago and was not yet removed. Diagnostic gastric endoscopy revealed a foreign body appearing to be an IUCD. Endoscopic removal failed. Computed tomography indicated the presence of an IUCD through the gastric cavity and thus we performed laparoscopic removal of the IUCD with wedge resection of the stomach. A penetrating IUCD was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS A gastric foreign body can be a migrated IUCD. Although rare, we must be aware that IUCDs can migrate into unexpected organs.

Pelvic pain.

When a complete metabolic panel offered no clues, we turned to imaging. And that's when we had our diagnosis.

Uterine dimensions and intrauterine device malposition: can ultrasound predict displacement or expulsion before it happens?

OBJECTIVE: Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are the most commonly used method of long-acting reversible contraception. IUD malpositions are described as expulsion, embedding, displacement, and perforation, which may cause contraception failure, organ injury, hemorrhage, and infection. The aim of the study was to evaluate the relationship between displacement and IUD positioning in the uterus, and uterine dimensions as measured using transvaginal ultrasonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-hundred and eighty-four patients who had TCu380A devices inserted at a tertiary hospital were evaluated at insertion and at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after insertion. At the insertion visit, demographic characteristics, history of menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea, previous IUD displacement, and obstetric history were recorded. Transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of the uterine cavity, uterine length, uterine width, cervix length, cervix width, transverse diameter of the uterine cavity, the distance between the tip of the IUD and the fundus, and endometrium were measured to evaluate IUD displacement. RESULTS: Sixteen of 384 patients had displacement. There were significant differences in times between last pregnancy outcomes and IUD insertion and dysmenorrhea history (p = 0.004 and p = 0.028, respectively). Among TCu380A users, women with 7.5 mm IUD endometrium distances had a higher risk for displacement with a sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 37.5% (AUC: 0.607, 95% CI 0.51-0.70). Women with uterus width less than 41.5 mm were more likely to have displacement with a sensitivity of 53.8% and a specificity of 75% (AUC: 0.673, 95% CI 0.60-0.75). CONCLUSION: IUD endometrium distance and uterus width are important parameters for displacement for TCu380A.

An Effective Method Combining Various Endoscopes in the Treatment of Intravesical Migrated Intrauterine Device.

OBJECTIVE: To introduce an effective method combining various endoscopes in the treatment of intravesical migrated intrauterine device (IUD). DESIGN: A step-by-step explanation of the surgery using video, approved by the Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University. SETTING: Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University. INTERVENTIONS: A 39-year-old young woman, in whom an IUD was inserted 2 months prior, presented with frequent urination after IUD insertion. Cystoscope and pelvic computed tomography were performed, and the results showed an IUD in the bladder. The migrated IUD was found partly in the uterus and partly in the bladder by hysteroscope and cystoscope. Management of the migrated IUD consists of 4 steps: (1) lysing the adhesion between the bladder and uterus, (2) suturing the bladder and taking the IUD part out of the bladder, (3) removing the IUD part in the uterus, and (4) suturing the bladder again to reinforce it and suturing the uterus. CONCLUSION: The migrated IUD in the bladder was successfully and completely extracted by the method combining various endoscopes; operative time was 56 minutes. In the follow-up period the patient did not report any symptoms of frequency urination. This surgical process has the following characteristics: Preoperative examination should be performed to clarify the ectopic site of the IUD, various endoscopes should be combined for diagnosis and treatment, and endoscopic surgery is an effective treatment method for migrated IUD.