Discussion
Our case is 30-year-old woman who had an IUD implantation 2 months
before admittance, a following work up due to IUD failure and pregnancy
revealed that the device had perforated and penetrated abdominal cavity.
Ultrasonographic imaging couldn’t precisely locate the device since the
device was fast shifting. The patient stated that she suffered from an
unbearable pain which indicated that the device should be removed.
During her first laparoscopic assessment we couldn’t find and retrieve
the device; therefore, tried using ultrasonographic guidance and it
proved to be helpful and the surgery resulted in success. Even though
the device was barely visible since it was embedded within the omentum,
we removed it.
IUDs rarely perforate uterine but these few instances can possibly cause
damage to internal organs. Several risk factors such as “inexperienced
clinician, lactation, low parity and post-partum insertions particularly
within 6 months after labor” are thought to be in association. Several
cases of penetration into bowel and urinary tract have been reported.
Patients with such perforations are prone to peritonitis. [5]
[8] [4] [11]
Although several imaging modalities can locate the device the most
preferred method in ultrasonography and as described by Rowlands et al
the first alarming sign for perforation is missing threads and the
backbone of diagnosis is ultrasonography. [5]All IUD devices are
radio opaque therefore they can be found on plain radiographs but this
doesn’t exactly reveal the position of device. A CT-scan can provide a
more comprehensive view on the matter and in a few select cases the
perforation was classified using this method. [5] [8] [16]
[14]
Our patient was a pregnant woman therefore, we could solely use
ultrasonography. We assume that since the device was cloaked with
granulation tissue and omentum “which is quite loose and unrestricted”
the position of the device couldn’t be accurately found. Thus, more
skill was required to locate the device and it could only be removed
with ultrasonographic guide. During the surgery, the device was barely
visible and could only be found with guidance and palpation.
The current consensus states that these devices should only be removed
if the patient is symptomatic or there is a great risk of adhesions and
complications such as perforation and peritonitis. Our patient was
neither severely ill nor any signs of perforation was noted but since
she was pregnant and prone to other complications and the pain was too
great for her to bear, we decided to remove the device. [8] [9]
[18] [14] [12]
Our experience with this patient has led us to presume that in patients
whose foreign body can not accurately be positioned another imaging
modality such as CT-scan must be utilized. If the patient has any
contraindications, an ultrasonographic guide can be extremely helpful.
In cases whose device is fast shifting and device is changing position
too often, it must also be considered that the device might be lodged in
tissues such as omentum that is loose and untethered; thereafter, a
guidance can help with retrieving it. Our patients also posed another
challenge which was due to its embedment within omentum this particular
phenomenon indicates internal organs be thoroughly examined and
palpated.
1. Thonneau P, Almont T, de La Rochebrochard E, Maria B. Risk factors
for IUD failure: results of a large multicentre case–control study.
Human Reproduction 2006;21 (10):2612-16
2. Thonneau P, Goulard H, Goyaux N. Risk factors for intrauterine device
failure: a review. Contraception 2001;64 (1):33-37
3. Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Do Minh T. Risk of uterine
perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine
devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine
Devices. Contraception 2015;91 (4):274-79
4. Caliskan E, Öztürk N, Dilbaz B, Dilbaz S. Analysis of risk factors
associated with uterine perforation by intrauterine devices. The
European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care
2003;8 (3):150-55
5. Rowlands S, Oloto E, Horwell DH. Intrauterine devices and risk of
uterine perforation: current perspectives. Open access journal of
contraception 2016;7 :19
6. Teal SB, Sheeder J. IUD use in adolescent mothers: retention, failure
and reasons for discontinuation. Contraception
2012;85 (3):270-74
7. Anderson SL, Borgelt LM. Case report: risk of uterine perforation
from IUDs is greatest during postpartum period. American family
physician 2013;88 (10):634
8. Zakin D, Stern WZ, Rosenblatt R. Complete and partial uterine
perforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterine deives. I.
Classification, complications, mechanism, incidence, and missing string.
Obstetrical & gynecological survey 1981;36 (7):335
9. Turok DK, Gurtcheff SE, Gibson K, Handley E, Simonsen S, Murphy PA.
Operative management of intrauterine device complications: a case series
report. Contraception 2010;82 (4):354-57
10. Aydogdu O, Pulat H. Asymptomatic far-migration of an intrauterine
device into the abdominal cavity: A rare entity. Canadian Urological
Association Journal 2012;6 (3):E134
11. Farmer M, Webb A. Intrauterine device insertion-related
complications: can they be predicted? BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
2003;29 (4):227-31
12. Adoni A, Chetrit AB. The management of intrauterine devices
following uterine perforation. Contraception 1991;43 (1):77-81
13. Boortz HE, Margolis DJ, Ragavendra N, Patel MK, Kadell BM. Migration
of intrauterine devices: radiologic findings and implications for
patient care. Radiographics 2012;32 (2):335-52
14. Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, Lähteenmäki P, Heikinheimo O.
Uterine perforation caused by intrauterine devices: clinical course and
treatment. Human reproduction 2013;28 (6):1546-51
15. Heinberg EM, McCoy TW, Pasic R. The perforated intrauterine device:
endoscopic retrieval. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic
Surgeons 2008;12 (1):97
16. Cheung M-L, Rezai S, Jackman JM, et al. Retained intrauterine device
(IUD): triple case report and review of the literature. Case reports in
obstetrics and gynecology 2018;2018
17. Christodoulides AP, Karaolides T. Intravesical migration of an
intrauterine device (IUD)-case report. Urology 2020;139 :14-17
18. Tuncay Y, Tuncay E, Güzin K, Öztürk D, Omurcan C, Yücel N.
Transuterine migration as a complication of intrauterine contraceptive
devices: six case reports. The European Journal of Contraception &
Reproductive Health Care 2004;9 (3):194-200