Contraception
Volume 67, Issue 1 , Pages 53-56 , January 2003

Uterine perforation on intrauterine device insertion: is the incidence higher than previously reported?

  • Mira Harrison-Woolrych

      Affiliations

    • Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
    • ,
  • Janelle Ashton

      Affiliations

    • Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
    • ,
  • David Coulter

      Affiliations

    • Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Received 14 August 2002 ,Revised 28 August 2002

References 

  1. Cole LP, Potts DM, Aranda C, et al.  An evaluation of the TCu 380Ag and the Multiload Cu375. Fertil Steril. 1985;43:214–217
  2. Wilson JC. A New Zealand randomised comparative study of three IUDs (Nova-T, ML Cu375, MLAgCu250):1-,2-, and 3-year results. Adv Contracept. 1992;8:153–159
  3. UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank, Special Programme of Research, Development, and Research Training in Human Reproduction: IUD Research Group. A randomised multicentre trial of the Multiload 375, and TCu380 IUDs in parous women (three year results). Contraception. 1994;49:543–549
  4. Edelman DA, Porter CW. The new intrauterine contraceptive devices (safe and effective). Adv Contracept. 1993;9:83–91
  5. Coulter DM. The New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 1998;7:79–90
  6. Coulter DM. The New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme in Pro-active Safety Surveillance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 2000;9:273–280
  7. Harrison-Woolrych ML, Ashton J, Coulter DM. Insertion of the Multiload Cu375 intrauterine device (experience in over 16,000 New Zealand women). Contraception. 2002;66:387–391

PII: S0010-7824(02)00417-1

Contraception
Volume 67, Issue 1 , Pages 53-56 , January 2003

Article Tools