Management of missing strings in users of intrauterine contraceptives.

BACKGROUND: A common question among health care professionals is how to manage nonvisible strings in users of intrauterine contraceptives (IUCs) at repeat follow-up visits. This study assessed the position of the IUCs in women who consulted repeatedly with nonvisible IUC strings. STUDY DESIGN: The medical records of the clinic were reviewed to identify new acceptors and switchers who had an IUC inserted between 1990 and 2009. All women were identified whose IUC string could not be visualized at the external os of the cervix by the health care professional at any given follow-up visit, even after attempting a standard maneuver of sweeping the strings from the cervical canal using a cervical brush or trying to visualize the strings in the cervical canal using colposcopy. Data were also retrieved on the use of ultrasonography and/or pelvic X-ray to assess IUC position, as well as data from any subsequent visits at which the IUC strings were nonvisible. RESULTS: The medical charts of 14,935 patients using an IUC were reviewed, and 750 women (5.0%) presenting for the first time with missing IUC strings at any follow-up visit were identified. Ultrasound scans showed the IUC to be in situ in 735 cases (98.0%), while 9 women (1.2%) had expelled the device and, in 5 cases (0.7%), the device was found in the pelvis following uterine perforation. IUC strings were missing on a second occasion in 297 cases. The device was found to be in situ in 295 cases (99.3%) and had been expelled in 2 (0.7%). At subsequent consultations, (between 1 and 18 years after the first consultation), strings were missing in 113, 55, 19 and 5 cases. In 111 (98.2%), 54 (98.2%), 18 (94.7%) and 5 (100%) of these cases, respectively, the IUC was found to be in situ, while in the remaining cases, the device had been expelled. CONCLUSIONS: Missing IUC strings are an uncommon finding, and ultrasonography confirmed that the device was in situ in the majority of these cases. For women with persistent missing IUC strings after one ultrasound scan that has verified appropriate intrauterine position, given the 2.4% likelihood that expulsion may have occurred at the time of subsequent visits, repeating the ultrasound (if available) should be considered for at least one (and possibly two) additional women's visit.

A three-year longitudinal evaluation of the forearm bone density of users of etonogestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate bone mineral density (BMD) at baseline and at 18 and 36 months of use of etonogestrel (ENG)-and levonorgestrel (LNG)-releasing contraceptive implants. This is a continuation of a previous study in which BMD was evaluated at baseline and at 18 months of use. METHODS: A total of 111 women, 19-43 years of age, were randomly allocated to use one of the two implants. At 36 months of follow-up, only 36 and 39 women were still using the ENG- and LNG-releasing implants, respectively. BMD was evaluated at the distal and at the ultra-distal radius of the non-dominant forearm using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: There was no difference in the BMD of users of either implant at 18 and at 36 months. BMD was significantly lower at 18 and at 36 months at the distal radius in both groups of users compared to pre-insertion values; however, no difference was found at the ultra-distal radius. CONCLUSION: Women 19-43 years of age using either one of these two contraceptive implants for 36 months had lower BMD values at the distal radius compared to pre-insertion values; however, no difference was found at the ultra-distal radius.

A prospective study of the forearm bone density of users of etonorgestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare bone mineral density (BMD) before insertion and at 18 months of use of etonorgestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants. METHODS: One hundred and eleven women, 19-43 years of age, were randomly allocated to two groups: 56 to etonorgestrel and 55 to levonorgestrel. BMD was evaluated at the midshaft of the ulna and at the distal radius of the non-dominant forearm using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry before insertion and at 18 months of use. RESULTS: There was no difference in baseline demographic or anthropometric characteristics, or in BMD of users of either model of implant. BMD was significantly lower at 18 months of use at the midshaft of the ulna in both groups of users. However, no difference was found at the distal radius. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the variables associated with BMD at 18 months of use in both implant groups were baseline BMD, body mass index (BMI) and difference in BMI (0 versus 18 months of use). CONCLUSIONS: Women of 19-43 years of age using either one of the implants showed lower BMD at 18 months of use at the midshaft of the ulna, however, without a difference at the distal radius.

Enlarged ovarian follicles in users of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and contraceptive implant.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of enlarged ovarian follicles among users of a 20 micrograms/d levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena, Leiras Oy, Turku, Finland), of subdermal contraceptive implants releasing Nestorone (Population Council, New York, New York) and of the TCu 380A intrauterine device. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort study was conducted at the Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil. Three hundred women were enrolled, with 100 participants in each group. Bimanual pelvic examination and vaginal ultrasound were performed during routine gynecologic examinations in women without complaints. In women with enlarged ovarian follicles (> or = 25 mm), estradiol and progesterone levels were assessed weekly until disappearance or reduction of the ovarian image. RESULTS: Enlarged ovarian follicles were detected in 19%, 10% and 5% of users of the levonorgestrel system, implants and intrauterine device, respectively. Most of the enlarged ovarian images disappeared after 2 weeks of follow-up. Progesterone levels showed that the intrauterine system and TCu 380A IUD (FEI, North Tonawanda, New York) users had presumably ovulated before the first ultrasound examination in contrast to the implant users. CONCLUSION: Physicians and users should be aware that findings of enlarged ovarian follicles during the use of progestin-only contraceptives are transient and that no medical interventions are necessary.