Case Report
BibTex RIS Cite

An unusual complication of ıntrauterine Device

Year 2018, Volume: 1 Issue: 3, 45 - 47, 30.11.2018

Abstract

We present a case of an unusual complication of intrauterine device (IUD). Uterine perforations
are among the most serious complications associated with the insertion of an intrauterine device.
In this case, the perforation involved the cervical wall and it was asymptomatic for a period of
unknown time. Inadequate pelvic examination before insertion and inexperience of the inserting
person might be predisposing factors for uterine perforation. We suggest that the patient should
be counseled on self-maintenance and checking for the threads one month after insertion and
regularly thereafter.
  

References

  • 1. Ozgun MT, Batukan C, Serin IS, et al. Surgical management of intra-abdominal mislocated intrauterine devices. Contraception 2007; 75: 96- 100. 2. Velazquez Velasco JR, Vilchis Nava P, Nevarez Bernal RA, et al. Uterine and jejunum perforation due to intrauterine device. A report of a case and literature review. Gynecol Obstet Mex 2006; 74: 435-438. 3. Medina TM, Hill DA, Dejesus S, et al. IUD removal with colonoscopy: a case report. J Reprod Med 2007; 50: 547-549. 4. Bowen-Simpkins P. Missing IUD fragment. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004; 30: 276. 5. Chen CP and Hsu TC. Ileal penetration by a Multiload-Cu 375 intrauterine contraceptive device. A case report with review of the literature. Contraception 1998; 58: 295-304. 6. Stuckey A, Dutreil P, Aspuru E, et al. Symptomatic cecal perforation by an intrauterine device with appendectomy removal. Obstetric Gynecology 2005; 105:1239-1241.

Rahim içi Araç ile ilgili Nadir Görülen Bir Komplikasyon

Year 2018, Volume: 1 Issue: 3, 45 - 47, 30.11.2018

Abstract

Rahim içi araç,3 ile ilgili nadir görülen bir komplikasyonu sunduk. Rahim içi araç ile ilgili
en ciddi komplikasyon, uterin perforasyondur. Bu vakada perforasyon servikal kanal duvarına
doğru olmuş ve ne zaman olduğu bilinmemektedir. Yetersiz pelvik muayene ve işlemi uygulayan
kişinin yeterince deneyimli olmaması perforasyon oluşma riskini arttırmaktadır. Bizce en önemli
şey, kadının rahim içi aracı uyguladıktan sonra düzenli aralıklarla kendi kendine muayene ile
aracı belli aralıklarla kontrol etmesidir.
  

References

  • 1. Ozgun MT, Batukan C, Serin IS, et al. Surgical management of intra-abdominal mislocated intrauterine devices. Contraception 2007; 75: 96- 100. 2. Velazquez Velasco JR, Vilchis Nava P, Nevarez Bernal RA, et al. Uterine and jejunum perforation due to intrauterine device. A report of a case and literature review. Gynecol Obstet Mex 2006; 74: 435-438. 3. Medina TM, Hill DA, Dejesus S, et al. IUD removal with colonoscopy: a case report. J Reprod Med 2007; 50: 547-549. 4. Bowen-Simpkins P. Missing IUD fragment. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004; 30: 276. 5. Chen CP and Hsu TC. Ileal penetration by a Multiload-Cu 375 intrauterine contraceptive device. A case report with review of the literature. Contraception 1998; 58: 295-304. 6. Stuckey A, Dutreil P, Aspuru E, et al. Symptomatic cecal perforation by an intrauterine device with appendectomy removal. Obstetric Gynecology 2005; 105:1239-1241.
There are 1 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Clinical Sciences
Journal Section Case study
Authors

Nurgul Ulusoy This is me

Hediye Dağdeviren This is me

Publication Date November 30, 2018
Acceptance Date August 31, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 1 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Ulusoy, N., & Dağdeviren, H. (2018). An unusual complication of ıntrauterine Device. Tıp Fakültesi Klinikleri Dergisi, 1(3), 45-47.


All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Common Attribution Licence. (CC-BY-NC 4.0)

by-nc.png