Migration of an intrauterine device: a case report
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v38i1.13079Keywords:
Intrauterine device migration, Intrauterine deviceAbstract
Introduction: Intrauterine contraceptive devices are a common method of long reversible contraception in women, widely inserted by general practitioners and gynecologists. Although being safe and reliable, these devices can lead to complications, such as perforation or abscess after insertion. There are over 1,000 cases described in the medical literature of intrauterine devices’ migration from the uterus to other locations, such as sigmoid colon or peritoneal cavity.
Case description: We present the case of a 54 years old woman, from Guinea-Bissau, who presented with recurrent pelvic pain and dyspareunia, for 10 years. She was followed for four years in Gynecology. In the previous years, the patient had repeated and persistent dysuria and urinary urgency, along with positive urocultures and the presence of blood and leukocytes in urine. Despite the appropriate antibiotic treatment, the symptoms recurred. On further examination, gynecological and bladder ultrasounds were performed and a hyperdense structure compatible with an intrauterine contraceptive device was found inside the bladder. After referral to the Emergency Department of Urology, the diagnosis was confirmed and the intrauterine contraceptive device was then removed.
Comment: In medical literature, almost all extra-uterine intrauterine devices (IUD) are due to migration. Patients with intrauterine devices ought to have regular follow-ups. If there is a suspicion of a “lost” intrauterine device, especially in a woman with chronic pelvic pain, dysuria, or recurrent urinary tract infections, a further radiologic examination is in order to rule out the rare, but possible, hypothesis of migration.
Downloads
References
Sundaram A, Vaughan B, Kost K, Bankole A, Finer L, Singh S, et al. Contraceptive failure in the United States: estimates from the 2006-2010 national survey of family growth. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017;49(1):7-16.
Buhling KJ, Zite NB, Lotke P, Black K, INTRA Writing Group. Worldwide use of intrauterine contraception: a review. Contraception. 2014;89(3):162-73.
Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Minh TD. Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices. Contraception. 2015;91(4):274-9.
Blanas K, Theodora M, Hassanaien M. Incidental discovery of two levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems misplaced in the peritoneal cavity. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2010;15(6):441-4.
Johri V, Vyas KC. Misplaced intrauterine contraceptive devices: common errors, uncommon complications. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(5):905-7.
Insausti Jaca N, Urresola Olabarrieta A, Ibáñez S, Atilano Santos L, Aguinaga Alexanco A, Larrea Bilbao L. Perforación útero-vesical secundaria a un dispositivo intrauterino con formación de litiasis vesical: a propósito de dos casos [Uterovesical perforation secondary to intrauterine device with vesical lithiasis formation: a report of two cases]. Radiología. 2007;49(2):129-32. Spanish
Singh I. Intravesical Cu-T emigration: an atypical and infrequent cause of vesical calculus. Int Urol Nephrol. 2007;39(2):457-9.
Pereira BJ, Coelho H, Brandão A, Borges R, Leão R, Grenha V, et al. Migração transuterina transvesical espontânea de dispositivo intra-uterino [Transuterine transvesical IUD migration]. Acta Urol. 2010;4:55-7.
Kant S, Archana S, Singh AK, Ahamed F, Haldar P. Acceptance rate, probability of follow-up, and expulsion of postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device offered at two primary health centers, North India. J Family Med Prim Care. 2016;5(4):770-6.
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.
Esposito JM, Zarou DM, Zarou GS. A Dalkon Shield imbedded in a myoma: case report of an unusual displacement of an intrauterine contraceptive device. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973;117(4):578-81.
Goldbach AR, Hava S, Patel H, Khan M. IUD embedment in the fallopian tube: an unexpected location for a translocated IUD. Radiol Case Rep. 2018;13(4):788-92.
Gonzalvo Pérez V, Mola Ariza MJ, Navarro Antón JA, Botella Almodóvar R, Polo Peris A, López García LM, et al. Perforación uterina y migración vesical de un dispositivo intrauterino. Actas Urol Esp. 2001;25(6):458-61.
Chai W, Zhang W, Jia G, Cui M, Cui L. Vesical transmigration of an intrauterine contraceptive device: a rare case report and literature review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(40):e8236.
Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):768-70.
Yaphe J. Teaching and learning about uncertainty in family medicine. Rev Port Med Geral Fam. 2014;30(5):286-7.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Portuguese Journal of Family Medicine and General Practice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors will assign to the RPMGF the sole right to publish and distribute the content of the manuscript specified in this declaration via physical, electronic, broadcasting or any other medium that may come into existence. They also grant the RPMGF the right to use and exploit this manuscript, in particular by assigning, selling or licensing its content. This permission is permanent and takes effect from the moment the manuscript is submitted, has the maximum duration allowed by applicable Portuguese or international law and is of worldwide scope. The authors further declare that this assignment is made free of charge. If the RPMGF informs the authors that it is not going to publish their manuscript, the exclusive assignment of rights ceases forthwith.
The authors authorise the RPMGF (or any entity it may appoint) to act on their behalf when it believes that copyright may have been infringed.
