Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Atencion Primaria logoLink to Atencion Primaria
. 2008 Dec 10;36(10):576–584. [Article in Spanish] doi: 10.1016/S0212-6567(05)70570-9

El médico de familia ante la inserción de un DIU

L Arribas-Mir 1,⁎, A Ortega del Moral 1, M Jódar-Reyes 1
PMCID: PMC7684491  PMID: 16507294

The content is available as a PDF (331.1 KB).

Bibliografía

  • 1.Arribas L. Panorama anticonceptivo 2002. Aten Primaria. 2002;29:359–365. doi: 10.1016/S0212-6567(02)70584-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lete I., Bermejo R., Coll C., Dueñas J.L., Doval J.L., Martínez-Salmeán J. Spanish population at risk of unwanted pregnancy: results of a national survey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2003;8:75–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Menéndez V., Fernández M.J., Doval X.L., Blanco S., García A., Gulín R. Comparación en el uso del dispositivo intrauterine (DIU) entre médicos de familia y ginecólogos. Aten Primaria. 1998;22:622–626. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Vos A.A., Veldhuis H.M., Lagro-Janssen T.L. Intrauterine contraception: the role of general practitioners in four Ducth general practice. Contraception. 2004;69:283–287. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Johansen J.R., Dupont M., Obel E.B. Insertion of intrauterine device in general practice.Wich womwn choose the IUD, and how is the procedure done? Ugeskr Laeger. 2001;163:4574–4577. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Canavan T.P. Appropiate use of the intrauterine device. American Family Physician. 1998;58:2077–2084. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Weisberg E., Fraser I.S., Goss S. The decline in popularity of the intrauterine device. A survey of general practitioner attitudes and practices in New South Wales. Med J Aust. 1994;160:19–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cheng D. Family planning training in Maryland family practice and obstetrics/gynecology residency programs. J Am Med Women Assoc. 1999;54:208–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.World Health Organization. Reproductive Health and Research . Third edition. WHO Geneva; Geneva: 2004. Improving access to quality care in family planning.Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Disponible en http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Actualización del manejo clínico de la anticoncepción intrauterine Recomendaciones de la Conferencia de Consenso. Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología. 2002;45:457. Disponible en: www.sec.es. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hatcher R.A., Trussel J., Stewart G.K., Cates W., Jr, Stewart G.K., Guest F. 17th rev. ed. Ardent Media; New York: 1998. Contraceptive technology. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hatcher R.A., Nelson A.L., Zieman M., Darney P.D., Creinin M.D., Stosur H.R. Bridging the Gap Foundation; Tiger, Georgia: 2003. A pocket guide to managing contraception. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gupta S., Miller J.E. A survey of GP views in intra-uterine contraception. Br J Fam Plann. 2000;26:81–84. doi: 10.1783/147118900101194300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Martínez F., Parera N., Carreras O. Asesoramiento de la usuaria del sistema de liberación intra-uterino de levonorgestrel (SIULNG) Revista Iberoamericana de Fertilidad. 2001;18:125–132. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hubacher D., Cheng D. Intrauterine devices and reproductive health: American women in feast and famine. Contraception. 2004;69:437–446. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2004.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Weiss E., Moore K. An assessment of the quality of information available on the Internet about the IUD and the potential impact on contraceptives choices. Contraception. 2003;68:359–364. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Makkonen K., Hemminki E., Tuimala R. Pros and cons of intrauterine contraception – do perceptions of users and physicians differ? Scand J Prim Health Care. 1994;12:190–196. doi: 10.3109/02813439409003698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kokonya D.A., Sinei S.K., Sekadde-Kingodu C.B., Morrison C.S., Kwok C., Weiner D.H. Experience con IUCD insertion outside of menses in Kenia. East Afr Med J. 2000;77:369–373. doi: 10.4314/eamj.v77i7.46675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.World Health Organization . 2.ª ed. WHO; Geneva: 2002. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. Disponible en: www.who.int/reproductive-health. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Reuter S. The emergency intrauterine device: an endangered species. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. 2003;29:5. doi: 10.1783/147118903101197421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Reuter S. Barriers to the use of IUDS as emergency contraception. Br J Fam Plann. 1999;25:61–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Grimes D.A., Schulz K.F. Prophylactic antibiotics for intrauterine device insertion: a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled trials. Contraception. 1999;60:57–63. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(99)00071-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hostynek J.J., Maibach H.I. Copper hypersensitivity: dermatologic aspects – an overview. Rev Environ Healt. 2003;18:153–183. doi: 10.1515/reveh.2003.18.3.153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hurskainen R., Teperi J., Rissanen P., Aalto A.M., Grenman S., Kivelä A. Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus hysterectomy for treatment of menorrhagia: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;357:273–277. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03615-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lähteenmäki P., Haukkamaa M., Puolakka J., Riikonen U., Sainio S., Suvisaari J. Open randomised study of use of levonor-gestrel releasing intrauterine system as alternative to histerectomy. BMJ. 1998;316:122–126. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hubacher D., Lara-Ricalde R., Taylor D.J., Guerra-Infante F., Guzmán-Rodríguez R. Use of cooper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:561–567. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Darney P.D. Time to pardon the IUD? N Engl J Med. 2001;345:608–609. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200108233450810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Thonneau P, Guolard H, Goyaux N. Risk factors for intrauterine device failure: a review. Contraception. 201;64:33-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 29.Martínez F., Giménez E., Hernández G., Alvarez D., Tejada M. Experience with GyneFIX insertions in Spain: favorable acceptance of the intrauterine contraceptive implant with some limitations. Contraception. 2002;66:315–320. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00392-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Speroff D. 2.ª ed. Marban Libros S.L.; Madrid: 1998. Contracepción. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Andersson K., Ryde-Bmqvist E., Lindell K., Odlind V., Milsom I. Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey. Contraception. 1998;57:251–255. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(98)00029-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ylikorkala O., Viinikka L. Comparison between antifibrinolytic and antiprostaglandin treatment in the reduction of increased menstrual blood loss in women with intrauterine contraceptive devices. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983;90:78–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1983.tb06751.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Makarainen L., Ylikorkala O. Ibuprofen prevents IUCD-induced increases in menstrual blood loss. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986;93:285–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1986.tb07910.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Davies A.J., Anderson A.B., Turnbull A.C. Reduction by naproxen of excesive menstrual bleeding in women using intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 1981;57:74–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Grimes D.A. Intrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infection. Lancet. 2000;356:1013–1019. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02699-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shelton J.D. Risk of clinical pelvic inflammatory disease attributable to an intrauterine device. Lancet. 2001;357:443. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04012-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Backman T., Rauramo I., Huhtala S., Koskenvuo M. Pregnancy during the use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2004;190:50–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.07.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Guillebaud J. Scheme for management of lost IUD threads. IPPF Med Bull. 1980;14:1–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Janowitz B., Hubacher D., Petrick T., Dighe N. Should the recommended number of IUD revisits be reduced? Stud Fam Plann. 1994;25:362–367. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hubacher D., Fortney J. Follow-up visits after IUD insertion. Are mor better? J Reprod Med. 1999;44:801–806. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Neuteboom K., De Kroon C.D., Dersjant-Roorda M., Jansen F.W. Follow-up visits after IUD-insertion: sense or nonsense? A technology assessment study to analyze the effectiveness of follow-up visits after IUD insertion. Contraception. 2003;68:101–104. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(03)00111-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cobellis L., Razzi S., Fava A., Severi F., Igarashi M., Petraglia F. A danazol-loaded intrauterine device decreases dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia associated with endometriosis. Fertility and Sterility. 2004;82:239–240. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Atencion Primaria are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES