Page 34 - wjols

Laparoscopic Retrieval of Contraceptive Device
Furthermore, in deciding whether to intervene in patients references
who have been asymptomatic, one should consider the risks of
conservative management including migration to more critical 1. Bozkurt M, Yumru AE, Coskun EI, et al. Laparoscopic management of
a translocated intrauterine device embedded in the gastric serosa.
locations with subsequent need for a complicated surgery, chances J Pak Med Assoc 2011;61(10):1020–1022.
of intra-abdominal abscess formation, psychological problems 2. Ingec M, Kumtepe Y, Kadanali S, et al. A rare case of ileal embedding
the patient may have, knowing about a foreign body inside her by an intrauterine device. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care
abdomen, and finally, the medicolegal consequences of a delayed 2005;10(1):29–31. DOI: 10.1080/13625180500035082.
management. All these supported the WHO recommendations of 3. Chi I. What have we learned from recent IUD studies: a researcher’s
early surgical removal of all extrauterine IUCDs, in both symptomatic perspective. Contraception 1993;48(2):81–108. DOI: 10.1016/0010-
and asymptomatic patients. 7824(93)90001-N.
Both laparotomy and laparoscopic surgeries are being 4. Heartwell SF, Schlesselman S. Risk of uterine perforation among users
of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61(1):31–36.
performed for IUCD removal in the cases with the device migration. 5. Aydogdu O, Pulat H. Asymptomatic far-migration of an intrauterine
Laparoscopy is a preferred method as it is a minimally invasive device into the abdominal cavity: a rare entity. CUAJ 2012;6(3):
procedure and has less complications and a shorter period of E134–E136. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.11100.
hospitalization compared to laparotomy. But laparoscopic removal 6. Stuckey A, Dutreil P, Aspuru E, et al. Symptomatic cecal perforation by
7
is not always possible. In the study of Gill et al., laparoscopic an intrauterine device with appendectomy removal. Obstet Gynecol
removal was successful in 64.2% of all included cases of migrated 2005;105(5 Pt 2):1239–1241. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000157760.59342.bc.
7
IUCDs. The main reasons of not performing laparoscopy or 7. Gill RS, Mok D, Hudson M, et al. Laparoscopic removal of an
converting it to laparotomy were adhesions and severe abdominal intra-abdominal intrauterine device: case and systematic review.
Contraception 2012;85(1):15–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.
sepsis. Luckily in our both patients, we were able to safely remove 2011.04.015.
the IUCDs laparoscopically without complication. 8. Gungor M, Sonmezer M, Atabekoglu C, et al. Laparoscopic
In conclusion, the possibility of perforation of the uterus should management of a translocated intrauterine device perforating
be considered in any woman who has an IUCD and the strings the bowel. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2003;10(4):539–541. DOI:
cannot be located, whether symptomatic or not. Surgical removal of 10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60163-6.
the device, after the diagnosis is made, is recommended to prevent 9. Zeino MY, Wietfeldt ED, Advani V, et al. Laparoscopic removal
any subsequent serious complications. Laparoscopy is obviously of a copper intrauterine device from the sigmoid colon. JSLS
2011;15(4):568–570. DOI: 10.4293/108680811X13176785204661.
preferable to laparotomy and our cases demonstrated that in 10. Mederos R, Humaran L, Minervini D. Surgical removal of an
selected patients, missing IUCD can be appropriately managed by intrauterine device perforating the sigmoid colon: a case report. Int
laparoscopy without complication. J Surg 2008;6(6):e60–e62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2007.02.006.
11. Sepulveda WH, Ciuffardi I, Olivari A, et al. Sonographic diagnosis of
bladder perforation by an intrauterine device. A case report. J Reprod

ethIcAl ApprovAl Med 1993;38(11):911–913.
All procedures performed in the study involving human participants 12. Dede FS, Dilbaz B, Sahin D, et al. Vesical calculus formation around
a migrated copper-T 380-A. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care
were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional 2006;11(1):50–52. DOI: 10.1080/13625180500389349.
and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki 13. Ozgun MT, Batukan C, Serin IS, et al. Surgical management of
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical intra-abdominal mislocated intrauterine devices. Contraception
standards. 2007;75(2):96–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2006.09.011.
14. Roy KK, Banerjee N, Sinha A. Laparoscopic removal of translocated
retroperitoneal IUD. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000;71(3):241–243. DOI:

Informe d consent to pArtIcIpAte 15. Sun CC, Chang CC, Yu MH. Far-migrated intra-abdominal intrauterine
10.1016/S0020-7292(00)00213-7.
Informed consent was obtained from both patients included in device with abdominal pain. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2008;47(2):
the study. 244–246. DOI: 10.1016/S1028-4559(08)60095-9.
16. Markovitch O, Klein Z, Gidoni Y, et al. Extrauterine mislocated IUCD:
is surgical removal mandatory? Contraception 2002;66(2):105–108.

Informed consent to publIsh 17. Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices.
DOI: 10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00327-X.

The informed consent was obtained from both patients to publish Report of a WHO cientific group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser
their case. 1987;753:1–91.
18. Demir SC, Cetin MT, Ucünsak IF, et al. Removal of intra-abdominal
intrauterine device by laparoscopy. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health
Care 2002;7(1):20–23. DOI: 10.1080/ejc.7.1.20.23.
Acknowledgment 19. Grimaldo Arriaga J, Herrera Aviles A, Garcia Taxilaga A. Perforation
The authors are thankful to Mr Mohamed Mubarak for his excellent of the large intestine caused by a type VII medicated copper IUCD.
librarian assistance. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1993;61:235–237.

86 World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery, Volume 13 Issue 2 (May–August 2020)