Abstract
Introduction: Copper intrauterine devices (IUDs) are the most commonly used type of IUD. This study is aimed at assessing the safety, efficacy and continuation rates of postpartum Cu T380A in women delivering at our center.
Methodology: A longitudinal study of participants recruited from the antenatal clinic willing for postpartum insertion of Cu T380A was done. Participants were counselled about Cu T380A during the antenatal period. Baseline demographic information, medical and menstrual history and adverse effects were noted. Expulsions and continuation rates were assessed.
Results: During the study period 89 women were willing for IUCD insertion and regular follow up. Most common age group was 26 to 30 years and 73% were primipara. 53% of all participants had an immediate postpartum insertion of IUCD. Insertion of IUCD was easy in 87% of the cases and two thirds had a pain perception of 0 to 5 on the VAS. During the follow up period pf one year a total of 12 expulsions were observed. Additionally, five cases had their IUCD removed. So the total continuation rate in our patient population was 81%. Unplanned pregnancy was reported in one cases (1.1%). Five cases reported abnormal vaginal bleeding, three reported pain in abdomen and two cases reported the thread to be missing. No cases of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) were reported in our patient population during the study period.
Conclusions: The benefits of Cu T380A should become better recognized with time. As part of routine antenatal services, counselling for post-partum family planning should be done for all women.
Keywords: Continuation rate, Expulsion, Intrauterine contraceptive devices, Post-placental.
References
- UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme Prog Reprod Health 2007:60.
- Kulier R, O’Brien PA, Helmerhorst FM, Usher-Patel M, D’Arcangues Copper containing, framed intra-uterine devices for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007:CD005347.
- Thonneau PF, Almont T, Almont TE. Contraceptive efficacy of intrauterine devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198:248.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). U S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010; 59:1.
- Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. Vital Health Stat. 2010;23(29):1–44.
- Harper CC, Blum M, de Bocanegra HT, et Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1359–69.
- Thonneau PF, Almont T. Contraceptive ef cacy of intrauterine devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:248–53.
- United Nations Development Programme/United Nations Population Fund/World Health Organization/World Bank, Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Long-term reversible contraception. Twelve years of experience with the TCu380A and TCu220C. Contraception. 1997;56:341–52.
- Thonneau P, Almont T, de La Rochebrochard E, Maria B. Risk factors for IUD failure: results of a large multicentre case-control study. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2612–6.
- De la Cruz D, Cruz A, Arteaga M, Castillo L, Tovalin Blood cop- per levels in Mexican users of the T380A IUD. Contraception. 2005;72: 122–5.
- O’Brien PA, Kulier R, Helmerhorst FM, Usher-Patel M, d’Arcangues Copper-containing, framed intrauterine devices for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Contraception. 2008;77:318–27.
- Grillo CA, Reigosa MA, de Mele MA. Does over-exposure to copper ions released from metallic copper induce cytotoxic and genotoxic effects on mammalian cells? Contraception. 2010;81:343–9.
- Rivera R, Chen-Mok M, McMullen S. Analysis of client characteristics that may affect early discontinuation of the TCu-380A IUD. Contraception 1999; 60:155.
- Sivin I, Stern Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20 micrograms/d and the copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: a multicenter study. International Committee for Contraception Research (ICCR). Fertil Steril. 1994;61:70–7.
- White MK, Ory HW, Rooks JB, Rochat Intrauterine device termi- nation rates and the menstrual cycle day of insertion. Obstet Gynecol. 1980;55:220–4.
- Harrison-Woolrych M, Ashton J, Coulter D. Uterine perforation on intra- uterine device insertion: is the incidence higher than previously reported? 2003;67:53–6.
- Hatcher, RA, Trussell, J, Stewart, F, et al. Contraceptive Technology, 19th ed, Ardent Media, Inc., New York 2007.
- Lee NC, Rubin GL, Borucki R. The intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease revisited: new results from the Women's Health Study. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72:1.
- Grimes DA. Intrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infection. Lancet 2000; 356:1013.
- Milsom I, Andersson K, Jonasson K, Lindstedt G, Rybo G. The in uence of the Gyne-T 380S IUD on menstrual blood loss and iron status. Contra- ception. 1995;52:175–9.
- Stanback J, Grimes Can intrauterine device removals for bleeding or pain be predicted at a one-month follow-up visit? A multivariate analysis. Contraception. 1998;58:357–60.
Corresponding Author
Dr Sanjivani Ashok Deshpande, MD, DGO
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Medical College & Hospital, Sangli
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v6i7.173
