Case Report: Term Birth with Unknown Intrauterine Device (IUD) in Situ

Melisa Indah Mustikasari, Aditya Fendi Uji Pamungkas, Razita Aulia Azkia, Made Chindy Dwiyanti Marheni Putri, I Made Ananta Wiguna

Abstract


Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) are highly efficient at preventing unintended pregnancies, without minimal failure rates, rare complications such as retention or displacement during pregnancy may lead to significant clinical challenge. This case discusses the diagnostic and management challenges of presumed IUD retention in the background of poor antenatal care. Multigravida woman, GIII/PII/A0, 24 years old with two previous caesarean deliveries, admitted in active labor at term. She received no antenatal care for her pregnancy because she could not afford it, and she thought that, because she had an IUD placed after her last cesarean section, she was infertile. On examination, uterine fundal height was 34 cm, amniotic membranes were intact, and the cervix was fully dilated as labor progressed. Spontaneous vaginal delivery was achieved and a 4050-gram (9 lb) neonate was delivered with Apgar scores of 4 at one minute and 5 at five minutes. In the postpartum period, she experienced complications including retained placenta requiring manual extraction and an estimated blood loss of 250 mL. After complete exploration and subsequent imaging, the IUD was not visualized, suggesting either early expulsion, unnoticed displacement or misplacement occurred at insertion. The patient’s postpartum course was unremarkable with appropriate uterotonic therapy and close observation. This case highlights the need for full antenatal care to prevent and manage complications associated with IUDs including displacement or retention that may result in adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Timely diagnosis and early interventions coupled with appropriate imaging and clinical follow-up services are essential to optimize outcomes and minimize associated risks. 


Full Text:

PDF

References


American Pregnancy Association. Intrauterine device [Internet]. American Pregnancy Association. 2023. Available from: https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/birth-control-pills-patches-and-devices/iud-intrauterine-devices/ (Accessed on 24 Dec 2024)

Lanzola EL, Ketvertis K. Intrauterine Device. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557403/ (Accessed on 24 Dec 2024)

Rana A, Shrestha A, Regmi A, Aryal S, Karki P, Singh R. Intrauterine pregnancy with copper intrauterine contraceptive device in situ: A case report from Nepal. Annals of Medicine & Surgery. 2022;82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104781

Panchal VR, Rau AR, Mandelbaum RS, Violette CJ, Harris CA, Brueggmann D, et al. Pregnancy with retained intrauterine device: national-level assessment of characteristics and outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM. 2023;5(9):101056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101056

Backman T, Rauramo I, Huhtala S, Koskenvuo M. Pregnancy during the use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2004;190(1):50–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.07.021

Ozgu-Erdinc AS, Tasdemir UG, Uygur D, Aktulay A, Tasdemir N, Gulerman HC. Outcome of intrauterine pregnancies with intrauterine device in place and effects of device location on prognosis. Contraception. 2014;89(5):426–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.01.002

Elvin P, Thomas R. Case Report: Pregnancy While Using an IUD. Obstetrics and Gynaecology Cases - Reviews. 2020;7(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.23937/2377-9004/1410172

Brahmi D, Steenland MW, Renner RM, Gaffield ME, Curtis KM. Pregnancy outcomes with an IUD in situ: a systematic review. Contraception. 2012;85(2):131–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2011.06.010

Barnhart KT. Ectopic Pregnancy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;361(4):379–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/nejmcp0810384

Correia L, Ramos AB, Machado AI, Rosa D, Marques C. Magnetic resonance imaging and gynecological devices. Contraception. 2012;85(6):538–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2011.10.011

Perry AE, Basu Serna T. Dilation and evacuation after preterm premature rupture of membranes with abdominal cerclage in situ. Contraception. 2020;101(5):296–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2020.01.013

Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, Berry-Bibee E, Horton LG, Zapata LB, et al. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recommendations and Reports. 2016;65(3):1–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6503a1




DOI: https://doi.org/10.33846/hd20102

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Health Dynamics || Open Access Journal || Online version only || Publisher: Knowledge Dynamics || ISSN: 3006-5518 (online) || Contact: healthdynamics.journal@gmail.com; +8801814901991; +6282136364408