Missing intrauterine contraceptive device presenting with strings at the anus
- PMID: 1785198
Missing intrauterine contraceptive device presenting with strings at the anus
Abstract
The rare condition of strings of a missing intrauterine contraceptive device presenting at the anus is described. Partial removal was achieved via the rectum and this was followed by a normal uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery.
PIP: Uterine perforation by an IUD has an incidence of .3-.6/1000 insertions and reported by the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1991. A 23-year old housewife with parity of 2+0 was referred to the gynecology clinic in Trinidad with a diagnosis of a misplaced IUD that had been inserted 3 years before after the 2nd childbirth. She felt for the strings in the vagina at regular intervals but they were missing at the last check, and she indicated that they were felt at the anus. Vaginal examination showed normal vagina and cervix, a normal size retroverted and mobile uterus without adnexal masses. During rectal examination neither the strings nor the IUD could be palpated. X-ray examination confirmed the presence of a copper-7 device in the pelvis, and ultrasound showed it lying posterior to the uterus. Proctoscopy under general anesthesia identified the strings and the long arm of the Cu-7 IUD at about 6 cm from the anal margin. The transverse arm of the IUD was embedded in the rectovaginal septum. Pulling the strings did not succeed in retrieving the device whose transverse arm remained embedded after breakage following scissor dissection at the rectal mucosa. Dilatation and curettage as well as laparoscopy failed to locate the remnant arm. She was instructed about the low likelihood of any problem resulting from it. Post delivery X-ray examination after an uneventful pregnancy confirmed the presence of the retained fragment in the same position as before without displacement during pregnancy. It is probable that the route of retrograde travel of the IUD was via the cervix uteri caused by repetitive uterine contractions which pushed it though the cervix and rectovaginal septum into the rectum.
Similar articles
-
[Rare case of an improperly inserted contraceptive device].Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 1987;26(1):68-72. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 1987. PMID: 3296819 Bulgarian.
-
Migration of an intrauterine contraceptive device during the course of pregnancy: a case report.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):81-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.09.579. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009. PMID: 19110186
-
Uterine perforation by the multiload CU250 intra-uterine device.Med J Malaysia. 1982 Mar;37(1):76-7. Med J Malaysia. 1982. PMID: 6889674
-
Ovarian embedding of a transmigrated intrauterine device: a case report and literature review.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Aug;280(2):275-8. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0882-2. Epub 2008 Dec 19. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009. PMID: 19096860 Review.
-
[The 'lost' intra-uterine contraceptive device (author's transl)].J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1981;10(5):473-8. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1981. PMID: 7033343 Review. French.
Cited by
-
Rare case of rectal perforation by an intrauterine device: Case report and review of the literature.Int J Surg Case Rep. 2022 Oct;99:107610. doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2022.107610. Epub 2022 Sep 8. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2022. PMID: 36116303 Free PMC article.