+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices



Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices



Contraception 91(4): 274-279



The objectives were to identify and compare the incidence of uterine perforation and other medically adverse events associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems (LNG-IUSs, releasing 20 mcg LNG daily) and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs) under routine conditions of use in a study population representative of typical users. This is a multinational, prospective, non-interventional cohort study with new users of LNG-IUSs and copper IUDs. In addition to a baseline questionnaire, women and their treating health care professional completed a single follow-up questionnaire after 12 months. All patient-reported outcomes were validated by the treating physicians. A total of 61,448 women in six European countries were followed between 2006 and 2013 for more than 68,000 women-years of observation (70% LNG, 30% copper devices). Overall, 81 uterine perforations were reported: 61 for LNG-IUSs [1.4 per 1000 insertions (95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.1-1.8)] and 20 for copper IUDs [1.1 per 1000 insertions (95% CI: 0.7-1.7)], for an adjusted risk ratio (RRadj) of 1.6 (95% CI: 1.0-2.7) when adjusted for age, body mass index, breastfeeding at time of insertion and parity. Breastfeeding at time of insertion was associated with a sixfold increase (RR 6.1, 95% CI: 3.9-9.6), with no differences between LNG and copper IUD users. Sixty-three of the total 81 perforations were associated with previously suspected risk factors (e.g., breastfeeding, time since last delivery ≤36 weeks). No perforations led to serious illness or to injury of intra-abdominal or pelvic structures. Uterine perforation incidence in this study was low, with a benign clinical course thereafter. The LNG-IUSs and copper IUDs did not have clinically important differences in perforation rates. The European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices is the first large-scale, prospective, non-interventional study to compare the perforation risk in LNG-IUS and copper IUD users. It is the first to examine the independent roles that breastfeeding status and postpartum status have on perforation risk. Conducted during routine clinical practice, the findings are generalizable to broader populations.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058781179

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25601352

DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.007


Related references

Comparative contraceptive effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices: the European Active Surveillance Study for Intrauterine Devices. Contraception 91(4): 280-283, 2015

Risk of contraceptive failure and ectopic pregnancy in users of levonorgestrel-releasing and copper iuds: final results from the european active surveillance study on intrauterine devices. Fertility and Sterility 102(3): E11-E12, 2014

Protective effect of intrauterine release of levonorgestrel on pelvic infection: three years' comparative experience of levonorgestrel- and copper-releasing intrauterine devices. Obstetrics and Gynecology 77(2): 261-264, 1991

Two years' experience with two levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and one copper-releasing intrauterine device: a randomized comparative performance study. Fertility and Sterility 39(2): 187-192, 1983

Sexual functioning in women using levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems as compared to copper intrauterine devices. Journal of Sexual Medicine 9(4): 1065-1073, 2012

Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices and the risk of breast cancer. Contraception 83(3): 211-217, 2011

Comparative Contraceptive Effectiveness of Levonorgestrel-Releasing and Copper Intrauterine Devices. Obstetric and Gynecologic Survey 70(5): 317-318, 2015

Uterine ultrasonographic changes during endometriosis treatment: a comparison between levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 34(12): 1914-1918, 2008

OP35.04: 2D and 3D ultrasound in the visualization of different levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems and cupper intrauterine devices. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 36(S1): 154-154, 2010

Expulsion rate among users of two models of intrauterine devices (IUD), the Multiload 375 and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS, Mirena). European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 143(1): 64; Author Reply 64, 2009

Hemoglobin and serum ferritin levels in women using copper-releasing or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices: a systematic review. Contraception 87(4): 486-496, 2013

Sonographic and Doppler flow characteristics of levonorgestrel and copper-releasing intrauterine devices. Medgenmed 5(2): 38, 2003

The role of copper-releasing intrauterine device or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system on uterine bleeding and iron status (prospective study of 8 years). Minerva Ginecologica 54(3): 271-278, 2002

Relationship between uterine volume and discontinuation of treatment with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices in patients with adenomyosis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 294(3): 561-566, 2016

The incidence of actinomyces-like organisms in Papanicolaou-stained smears of copper- and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. Contraception 61(6): 365-368, 2000