The intrauterine device (IUD) : are there still contraindications? A study of 300 Gyne-T 380 users (1987-1992)
Faguer, C.
Contraception Fertilite Sexualite 21(1): 23-26
1993
ISSN/ISBN: 0301-861X PMID: 12289991 Document Number: 409977
During April 1987-July 1992, a gynecologist inserted 300 Gyne-T 380 IUDs in 274 women attending the obstetrical-gynecologic service at the University Hospital St. Antoine in Paris, France. Exclusion criteria for IUD use were nulliparity, prior confirmed genital infection, and indication of intolerance to an IUD in situ. The physician did not consider uterine scars (especially cesarean section scars), uterine malposition, and painless uterine retroversion as absolute contraindications. Instead, he considered them relative contraindications. He inserted the IUD in the beginning of the cycle without analgesia. He followed-up with IUD users every six months. 94% were followed-up at least once; most were followed-up regularly. After 1989, IUD insertions fell significantly. Most women (126) were 40-44 years old. Mean parity was 2.38. 96 IUDs were removed. The leading reason for IUD removal was menstrual cycle troubles (51.2%). 0.8% became pregnant. Pelvic inflammatory disease occurred in 3 women. 17% of the women had a retroverted uterus. Careful insertion led to hardly any difficulties in these cases. Secondary effects were more common in women with a retroverted uterus, however. IUD use was shorter in this group than in the entire group (16 vs. 25 months). None of the 18 cases with a uterine scar suffered adverse effects of the IUD. These findings show that IUD use can be safely extended and the IUD can be a valuable alternative to other contraceptive methods.