Use of the Mirena™ LNG-IUS and Paragard™ CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Release date 15 December 2009 SFP Guideline 20092

Contraception

Volumn 81, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 367-371

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

Intrauterine contraception; Intrauterine device; Intrauterine system; IUD; IUS; Nulliparity

Indexed keywords

COPPER INTRAUTERINE DEVICE; FEMILIS; LEVONORGESTREL; ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; DEVICE REMOVAL; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; FEMALE INFERTILITY; HUMAN; INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE; MENSTRUATION; NULLIPARA; ORAL CONTRACEPTION; PAIN; PARITY; PATIENT SAFETY; PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE; PREGNANCY RATE; SIDE EFFECT; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT INDICATION; UTERUS PERFORATION; ADOLESCENT; FEMALE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANCY;

ADOLESCENT; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENTS, FEMALE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; INTRAUTERINE DEVICES, COPPER; LEVONORGESTREL; PARITY; PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE; PREGNANCY; UTERINE PERFORATION;

EID: 77950867348     PISSN: 00107824     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.01.010     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson A, Cates W, Stewart F, Kowal D. Contraceptive technology 19th edition; 2008.
2. ACOG Practice Bulletin #59. Obstet Gynecol 105 (2005) 223
3. The Guttmacher Institute. Facts on contraceptive use. Jan 2008. Available at:. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.pdf (Accessed March 2009)
4. National Survey of Family Growth 2002, Centers for disease control and prevention.
5. Stanwood N.L., Garrett J.M., and Konrad T.R. Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet Gynecol 99 (2002) 275-280 [Evidence grade: II-2]
6. Stubbs E., and Schamp A. The evidence is in. Why are IUDs still out? Family physicians' perceptions of risk and indications. Can Fam Physician 54 (2008) 560-566 [Evidence grade: II-2]
7. Wellings K., Zhihong Z., Krentel A., Barretta G., and Glasier A. Attitudes towards long-acting reversible methods of contraception in general practice in the UK. Contraception 76 3 (2007) 208-214 [Evidence grade: II-2]
8. Stanwood N.L., and Bradley K.A. Young women's knowledge of modern intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 108 6 (2006) 1417-1422 [Evidence grade: II-2]
9. Asker C., Stokes-Lampard H., Beavan J., and Wilson S. What is it about intrauterine devices that women find unacceptable? Factors that make women non-users: a qualitative study. J Fam Plan Reprod Health Care 32 2 (2006) 89-94 [Evidence grade: II-2]
10. Available online at: http://www.paragard.com/health_care_professional/global/pdf/Prescribing-Info.pdf (Accessed March 2009).
11. Available online at: http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/Mirena_PI.pdf (Accessed March 2009).
12. World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use (2004). http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/mec/mec.pdf updated 2008. Available online at:
13. Suhonen S., Haukkamaa M., Jakobsson T., and Rauramo I. Clinical performance of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and oral contraceptives in young nulliparous women: a comparative study. Contraception 69 5 (2004) 407-412 [Evidence grade: I]
14. Brockmeyer A., Kishen M., and Webb A. Experience of IUD/IUS insertions and clinical performance in nulliparous women - a pilot study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 13 3 (2008) 248-254 [Evidence grade: II-2]
15. Wildemeersch D., Janssens D., Vrijens M., and Weyers S. Ease of insertion, contraceptive efficacy and safety of new T-shaped levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. Contraception 71 6 (2005) 465-469 [Evidence grade: III]
16. Wildemeersch D., Janssens D., and Andrade A. The Femilis LNG-IUS: contraceptive performance - an interim analysis. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 14 2 (2009) 103-110 [Evidence grade: III]
17. Prager S., and Darney P.D. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system in nulliparous women. Contraception 75 Suppl (2007) S12-5
18. Sivin I., Stern J., Coutinho E., et al. Prolonged intrauterine contraception: a seven year randomized study of the levonorgestrel 20 mcg/day (LNg 20) and the Copper T380 Ag IUDs. Contraception 44 (1991) 473-480 Evidence grade: I]
19. Veldhuis H., Vos A., and Lagro-Janssen A. Complications of the intrauterine device in nulliparous and parous women. Eur J Gen Pract 10 3 (2004) 82-87 [Evidence grade: III]
20. Dueñas J.L., Albert A., and Carrasco F. Intrauterine contraception in nulligravid vs parous women. Contraception. 53 1 (1996) 23-24 [Evidence grade: II-3]
21. Hubacher D. Copper intrauterine device use by nulliparous women: review of side effects. Contraception 75 Suppl (2007) S8-11 [Evidence grade: I]
22. Rivera R., Chen-Mok M., and McMullen S. Analysis of client characteristics that may affect early discontinuation of the TCu-380A IUD. Contraception 60 3 (1999 Sep) 155-160 [Evidence grade: III]
23. Caliskan E., Oztürk N., Dilbaz B.O., and Dilbaz S. Analysis of risk factors associated with uterine perforation by intrauterine devices. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 8 3 (2003) 150-155 [Evidence grade: III]
24. Tatum H.J., Schmidt F.H., Phillips D., McCarty M., and O'Leary W.M. The Dalkon Shield controversy. Structural and bacteriological studies of IUD tails. JAMA 231 7 (1975) 711-717 [Evidence grade: III]
25. Ebi K.L., Piziali R.L., Rosenberg M., et al. Evidence against tailstrings increasing the rate of pelvic inflammatory disease among IUD users. Contraception 53 (1996) 25 [Evidence grade: III]
26. Lee N.C., Rubin G.L., Ory H.W., and Burkman R.T. Type of intrauterine device and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol 62 (1983) 1-6 [Evidence grade: III]
27. Lee N.C., Rubin G.L., and Borucki R. The intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease revisited: new results from the Women's Health Study. Obstet Gynecol 72 (1988) 1-6 [Evidence grade: II-2]
28. Farley T.M., Rosenberg M.J., Rowe P.J., Chen J.H., and Meirik O. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective. Lancet 339 8796 (1992) 785-788 [Evidence grade: II-3]
29. Toivonen J., Luukkainen T., and Allonen H. Protective effect of intrauterine release of levonorgestrel on pelvic infection: three years' comparative experience of levonorgestrel- and copper-releasing intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 77 2 (1991) 261-264 [Evidence grade: I]
30. Randic L., Vlasic S., Matrljan I., and Waszak C.S. Return to fertility after IUD removal for planned pregnancy. Contraception 32 3 (1985) 253-259 [Evidence grade: III]
31. Hubacher D., Lara-Ricalde R., Taylor D.J., Guerra-Infante F., and Guzman-Rodriguez R. Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med 345 (2001) 561 [Evidence grade: II-1]
32. Farmer M., and Webb A. Intrauterine device insertion-related complications: can they be predicted?. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 29 (2003) 227-231 [Evidence grade: III]
33. Hubacher D. Pain from copper intrauterine device insertion: randomized trial of prophylactic ibuprofen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195 (2006) 1272-1277 [Evidence grade: I]
34. Fiala C., Gemzell-Danielsson K., Tang O.S., and von Hertzen H. Cervical priming with misoprostol prior to transcervical procedures. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 99 Suppl 2 (2007) 68-71 [Evidence grade: II-2]
35. Sääv I., Aronsson A., Marions L., Stephansson O., and Gemzell-Danielsson K. Cervical priming with sublingual misoprostol prior to insertion of an intrauterine device in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 22 10 (2007) 2647-2652 [Evidence grade: I]
36. Allen R.H., Bartz D., Grimes D.A., Hubacher D., and O'Brien P. Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3 (2009) 10.1002/14651858.CD007373.pub2 Art. No.: CD007373 [Evidence grade: I]
37. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 392. Intrauterine device and adolescents Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110(6):1493-5 [Evidence grade: III].
38. Finer L.B., and Henshaw S.K. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 38 2 (2006) 90-96 [Evidence grade: II-2]
39. Gold M.A., and Johnson L.M. Intrauterine devices and adolescents. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 20 5 (2008) 464-469 [Evidence grade: III]
40. Otero-Flores J.B., Guerrero-Carreño F.J., and Vázquez-Estrada L.A. A comparative randomized study of three different IUDs in nulliparous Mexican women. Contraception 67 4 (2003) 273-276 [Evidence grade: II-2]
41. Sivin I. Problems in the conduct and analysis of "a comparative randomized study of three different IUDs in nulliparous Mexican women". Contraception 69 3 (2004) 259-260 [Evidence grade: III]
42. O'Brien P.A., Kulier R., Helmerhorst F.M., Usher-Patel M., and d'Arcangues C. Copper-containing, framed intrauterine devices for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Contraception 77 5 (2008) 318-327 [Evidence grade: I]