Title: Migration of a Copper Intrauterine Device into the Sigmoid Colon: A Case Report
Authors: I. Chanaa, F. Azraq, A. Khtira, A. Bouchaib, MH. Alami
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v13i08.06
Abstract
Background: We report the case of a 34-year-old patient, notion of insertion of an IUD two months ago in a health center, the evolution was marked by the installation of abdominal pain which motivated the consultation in our training for additional care.
Methods: We performed a first coelioscopy, the IUD was embedded in the sigmoid colon then we completed with a mini laparotomy for the removal and the revision of the sigmoid wound.
Results: We insist through this observation and in the light of the literature review on the efficacy and safety of the IUD when the technique and indications are rigorously respected, but also on one of the very rare complications of the insertion of the IUD.
Conclusions: The IUD is an effective contraceptive method; its insertion is a simple medical procedure that requires minimal knowledge and experience. Perforation is one of the rarest and most serious complications. Laparoscopy remains the most effective diagnostic and therapeutic method.
Keywords: IUD, intraperitoneal migration, coelioscopy
References
- Boudineau M, Multon O, Lopes P. Contraception par dispositif intra-utérin. Encycl Méd Chir- Gynécologie. 2001;738-A-09:7. [Google Scholar]
- Zouhal A, el Amrani N, Bensaid F, et al. Migration intra-vesicale d′un dispositif intra-uterin a propos d′un cas. Rabat, Maroc: Maternité Universitaire des Orangers; 2000-2001. [Google Scholar]
- Treiman K, Laurie Liskin SCM, Adrienne Kols, et al. Les DIU: état récent des informations. Population Reports (Series B) 1995 Dec;(6):1–35. [Google Scholar]
- Ledward RS, Healey C, Eadie R. Removal of extrauterine Saf-T-Coil through laparoscope. British Medical Journal. 1972;1(5798):508. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.5798.508-a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zakin D, Stern WZ, Rosenblatt R. Complete and partial uterine perforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterine devices I Classification, complications, mechanism, incidence, and missing string. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 1981;36(7):335–353. doi: 10.1097/00006254-198107000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gruber A, Rabinerson D, Kaplan B, Pardo J, Neri A. The missing forgotten intrauterine contraception device. Contraception. 1996 Aug;54(2):117–9. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(96)00135-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chang CH, Chou CY, Lee WI, Tzeng CC, Liuc H. Pelvic actinomycosis with colo-ileo-vesical fistula formation: report of case. J Formos Med Assoc. 1992 Mar;91(3):342–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Markovitch O, Klein Z, Gidoni Y, Holzinger M, Beyth Y. Extrauterine mislocated IUD: is surgical removal mandatory. Contraception. 2002;66(2):105–108. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00327-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brar R, Doddi S, Ramasamy A, Sinha P. A forgotten migrated intrauterine contraceptive device is not always innocent: a case report. Case Rep Med. 2010:pii–740642. doi: 10.1155/2010/740642. 2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bacha Khaled, Ben Amna Marouane, Ben Hassine Lofti, et al. Dispositif intra-utérin migré dans la vessie. Progrès en Urologie. 2001;11:1289–1291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]