Comparison of copper intrauterine device with levonorgestrel-bearing intrauterine system for post-abortion contraception
Aim The aim of this study was to compare the safety, bleeding pattern, effects, side‐effects, complications and 6‐month continuity rates of levonorgestrel‐bearing intrauterine system (LNG‐IUS) with conventional copper intrauterine device (Cu‐IUD) inserted immediately after voluntary termination of p...
Saved in:
Published in | The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research Vol. 41; no. 9; pp. 1426 - 1432 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Australia
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.09.2015
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Aim
The aim of this study was to compare the safety, bleeding pattern, effects, side‐effects, complications and 6‐month continuity rates of levonorgestrel‐bearing intrauterine system (LNG‐IUS) with conventional copper intrauterine device (Cu‐IUD) inserted immediately after voluntary termination of pregnancy up to 10 weeks of gestation.
Methods
One hundred women who underwent voluntary pregnancy termination and preferred IUD insertion as a contraceptive method after counseling were enrolled. The patients were randomly allocated to Cu‐IUD or LNG‐IUS and followed up at 10 days, and at 1, 3 and 6 months. The expulsion rates, continuation rates, side‐effects, and bleeding patterns were compared.
Results
Fifty women in the Cu‐IUD group and 44 women in the LNG‐IUS group were followed up. The continuity and expulsion rate for Cu‐IUD and LNG‐IUS at the end of 6 months was 74%, 12%, and 75%, 11.3%, respectively. In LNG‐IUS users, the incidence of amenorrhea and the number of spotting days were higher and hemoglobin increased throughout the follow‐up period. The side‐effects related to both methods were not different from interval insertions.
Conclusion
Immediate post‐abortion intrauterine contraception with Cu‐IUD or LNG‐IUS is a safe, reliable method. The incidence of side‐effects is similar, and there is only a slightly higher rate of expulsion but an acceptable rate of method continuation. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ark:/67375/WNG-5J4G7ZLZ-G istex:C9AA52A61208BD544E039AD2E3EC924318943075 ArticleID:JOG12747 ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-News-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 1341-8076 1447-0756 |
DOI: | 10.1111/jog.12747 |