Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

[Causes, diagnosis and treatment of uterine perforations by intrauterine devices].
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1978 May-Jun; 7(4):837-47.JG

Abstract

Perforations of the uterus by intra-uterine devices (I.U.D.) are still at present serious complications. Their incidence is very varied and diverse because they are often asymptomatic. Pregnancy of a frequent circumstance under which they are discovered, as well as the more general way, which is the disappearance of the strings, which should always give rise to the suspicion that perforation has happened. There are two types to be distinguished from one another: Immediate perforation due to a faulty technique in insertion, secondary perforation due to gradual wearing down of the uterine wall. The factors predisposing to the occurrence of these accidents are numerous but notable among them are the date in the cycle when the insertion was done and above all the time in relationship to the last pregnancy, parity, the position of the uterus and the experience of the operator. Diagnosis of perforation is not always easy and may require not only radiological investigation without preliminary preparation but also hysterography, ultrasound examination and hysteroscopy. Withdrawal of a device that has perforated the uterus is advisable even if its migration has not given rise to any clinical symptoms. The technique for removing it varies often from case to cause between laparoscopy, laparotomy and culdotomy. Prevention of perforations should not only take into account the contra-indications to insertion but also knowledge of favourable factors, of a rigorous technique for insertion as well as clinical supervision in order to screen for secondary perforations.

Authors

No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

English Abstract
Journal Article

Language

fre

PubMed ID

568639

Citation

Treisser, A, and J C. Colau. "[Causes, Diagnosis and Treatment of Uterine Perforations By Intrauterine Devices]." Journal De Gynecologie, Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, vol. 7, no. 4, 1978, pp. 837-47.
Treisser A, Colau JC. [Causes, diagnosis and treatment of uterine perforations by intrauterine devices]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1978;7(4):837-47.
Treisser, A., & Colau, J. C. (1978). [Causes, diagnosis and treatment of uterine perforations by intrauterine devices]. Journal De Gynecologie, Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, 7(4), 837-47.
Treisser A, Colau JC. [Causes, Diagnosis and Treatment of Uterine Perforations By Intrauterine Devices]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1978 May-Jun;7(4):837-47. PubMed PMID: 568639.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - [Causes, diagnosis and treatment of uterine perforations by intrauterine devices]. AU - Treisser,A, AU - Colau,J C, PY - 1978/5/1/pubmed PY - 1978/5/1/medline PY - 1978/5/1/entrez SP - 837 EP - 47 JF - Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction JO - J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) VL - 7 IS - 4 N2 - Perforations of the uterus by intra-uterine devices (I.U.D.) are still at present serious complications. Their incidence is very varied and diverse because they are often asymptomatic. Pregnancy of a frequent circumstance under which they are discovered, as well as the more general way, which is the disappearance of the strings, which should always give rise to the suspicion that perforation has happened. There are two types to be distinguished from one another: Immediate perforation due to a faulty technique in insertion, secondary perforation due to gradual wearing down of the uterine wall. The factors predisposing to the occurrence of these accidents are numerous but notable among them are the date in the cycle when the insertion was done and above all the time in relationship to the last pregnancy, parity, the position of the uterus and the experience of the operator. Diagnosis of perforation is not always easy and may require not only radiological investigation without preliminary preparation but also hysterography, ultrasound examination and hysteroscopy. Withdrawal of a device that has perforated the uterus is advisable even if its migration has not given rise to any clinical symptoms. The technique for removing it varies often from case to cause between laparoscopy, laparotomy and culdotomy. Prevention of perforations should not only take into account the contra-indications to insertion but also knowledge of favourable factors, of a rigorous technique for insertion as well as clinical supervision in order to screen for secondary perforations. SN - 0368-2315 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/568639/[Causes_diagnosis_and_treatment_of_uterine_perforations_by_intrauterine_devices]_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -