You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letters to the editor
Incomplete removal of an intrauterine system
  1. Zhenying Zhu, MD
  1. Xiaoying Yao, MD
  1. Department of Family Planning, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China; 13564613967@163.com
  2. Department of Family Planning, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China; r.jiang@hotmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2014-101164

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    A 38-year-old woman, gravida 4 para 1, had a levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG IUS) inserted just after a third induced abortion. Thirteen months later she insisted on the IUS being removed because of amenorrhea. Ultrasound examination showed that it was normally located. A junior doctor was asked to remove it. On insertion of the speculum, the threads were clearly visible. The threads were gently pulled and the device was removed easily. The doctor thought it was intact. However, the patient still suffered from amenorrhea. Ultrasound examination appeared normal, so hysteroscopy was arranged.

    At hysteroscopy, moderate intrauterine adhesions were found. After hysteroscopic electrosurgery to divide the adhesions, the retained outer sleeve of the IUS was seen with fibrous tissue wrapped over its surface. It was grasped with forceps via the hysteroscope …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Editor's Note The complication of displacement of the hormonal sleeve of the LNG IUS was first described in this Journal by Torbé et al. in 2009 (Torbé EJV, Eddowes H, Aston K, Missing IUS arms? J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2009;35:131) and has since been the subject of several further letters. We publish the present letter as it describes intrauterine adhesions as an unusual, but significant, cause of this phenomenon.