Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Mar 12:15:41-47.
doi: 10.2147/OAJC.S458156. eCollection 2024.

Migration of Intra-Uterine Devices

Victoria Verstraeten  1   2 , Karlien Vossaert  2 , Thierry Van den Bosch  1
Affiliations
Review

Migration of Intra-Uterine Devices

Victoria Verstraeten et al. Open Access J Contracept. .

Abstract

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are a widely used contraceptive. Possible complications from IUDs include failed insertion, pain, vasovagal reaction, infection, abnormal bleeding, and expulsion. Uterine perforation and migration of the IUD are rare complications occurring in approximately 1-2 per 1000 insertions. We executed a systematic review by reviewing all case reports and case series on IUD migration, published between December 2002 and December 2022. Our review indicates that about half of these patients present with pain and that a third are completely asymptomatic. The most common sites of migration are the intestine, bladder, and omentum. We found that the preferred method for removing the migrated IUD is laparoscopy. Generally, there are no lasting injuries after the removal of the migrated IUD, but occasionally, severe complications have been reported. Healthcare providers should be vigilant about this rare complication, especially in cases of painful insertion or the presence of other risk factors for perforation. When uterine perforation is diagnosed, it is advisable to remove the IUD to prevent severe complications.

Keywords: complication; long-acting reversible contraceptive; missing IUD; uterine perforation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Prisma flowchart systematic review.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83(5):397–404. doi: 10.1016/J.CONTRACEPTION.2011.01.021 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Contraceptive Use. Population division; 2023. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/data/world-contraceptive-use. Accessed March 13,2024.
    1. Adeyemi-Fowode OA, Bercaw-Pratt JL. Intrauterine devices: effective contraception with noncontraceptive benefits for adolescents. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2019;32(5S):S2–S6. doi: 10.1016/J.JPAG.2019.07.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mestad R, Secura G, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Zhao Q, Peipert JF. Acceptance of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods by adolescent participants in the contraceptive CHOICE project. Contraception. 2011;84(5):493–498. doi: 10.1016/J.CONTRACEPTION.2011.03.001 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Do Minh T. Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European active surveillance study on intrauterine devices. Contraception. 2015;91(4):274–279. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.007 - DOI - PubMed