Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Canadian Family Physician logoLink to Canadian Family Physician
. 1979 May;25:617–618.

Failure of Intrauterine Contraceptives: A Review

John D Allingham
PMCID: PMC2383081  PMID: 21297743

Abstract

Accidental pregnancies with intrauterine devices may in part be attributed to inappropriate patient selection, lack of insertion expertise by physicians, and downward migration of IUDs from initial placement position. Available research on these factors is reviewed and a clinical protocol using ultrasound is proposed to detect and correct malpositioned devices.

Full text

PDF
617

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Burnhill M. S., Birnberg C. H. The size and shape of the uterine cavity determined by hysterography with an intrauterine contraceptive device as a marker. Int J Fertil. 1966 Apr-Jun;11(2):187–193. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gibor Y., Deysach L., Nissen C. H. Uterine length: a prognostic indicator for the successful use of the copper 7 intrauterine device. J Reprod Med. 1973 Nov;11(5):205–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hasson H. M., Berger G. S., Edelman D. A. Factors affecting intrauterine contraceptive device performance. I. Endometrial cavity length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976 Dec 15;126(8):973–981. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(76)90687-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hasson H. M. Copper IUDs. J Reprod Med. 1978 Mar;20(3):139–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hasson H. M. Factors that affect IUD performance: a review and recommendations. J Reprod Med. 1978 Sep;21(3):137–145. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kamal I., Ghoneim M., Talaat M., Abdalla M., Eid M., Rawia E. Pregnancies in the presence of copper intra-uterine devices. Hysterosalpingographic studies. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1976;14(4):341–347. doi: 10.1002/j.1879-3479.1976.tb00624.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kamal I., Ghoneim M., Talaat M., Mallawani A. The anchoring mechanism of retention of the Copper T device. Fertil Steril. 1973 Mar;24(3):165–169. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)39548-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Keith L., Hughey M. J., Berger G. S. Experience with modern inert IUDs to date: a review and comments. J Reprod Med. 1978 Mar;20(3):125–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Sakurabayashi M., Mohri T., Ono T., Takabatake H. Studies on intrauterine contraceptive devices. IV. The position of IUD in the cavity of uterus and nidation of fertilized ova. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Jpn. 1969 Oct;16(4):275–284. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Shine R. M., Thompson J. F. The in situ IUD and pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974 May 1;119(1):124–130. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(74)90326-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Tsai W. S., Chen H. Y., Chen Y. P., Wei P. Y. Sonographic visualization of coexisting gestation sac and I.U.D. in the uterus and a consideration of a causative factor of accidental pregnancy. Int J Fertil. 1973;18(2):85–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Wittmann B. K., Chow T. T. Diagnostic ultrasound in the management of patients using intrauterine contraceptive devices. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1976 Oct;83(10):802–808. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1976.tb00748.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Zipper J., Edelman D. A., Goldsmith A. An overview of IUD research and implications for the future. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1977;15(1):73–78. doi: 10.1002/j.1879-3479.1977.tb00649.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Family Physician are provided here courtesy of College of Family Physicians of Canada

RESOURCES