SILCS diaphragm: postcoital testing of a new single-size contraceptive device☆☆☆
Abstract
Background
This study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of a new, single-size silicone contraceptive diaphragm used with either spermicide [2% nonoxynol-9 (N-9)] or lubricant in preventing sperm from penetrating midcycle cervical mucus.
Study design
A crossover postcoital test (PCT) in healthy, sexually active women not at risk for pregnancy due to tubal occlusion was conducted. Couples had a baseline PCT without a device to verify normal fertility parameters. Qualified couples underwent up to two test cycles using the SILCS diaphragm with a metal spring. A subgroup of couples underwent a third test cycle with the SILCS polymer spring diaphragm used with N-9 gel.
Results
Fifteen couples completed a baseline cycle and were randomized to order of study gel. Of these, 14 couples completed a baseline cycle and at least one test cycle, 12 couples completed a baseline cycle and two test cycles and 8 couples completed a third test cycle with the polymer spring prototype. Sperm was detected in the vaginal pool in all completed test cycles. The SILCS metal spring diaphragms used with N-9 gel reduced the average number of progressively motile sperm per high power field in the cervical mucus from a baseline of 12.5 to 0, while use of this device with lubricant reduced the number to 0.5. The SILCS polymer spring diaphragm used with N-9 performed the same as the metal spring used with N-9.
Conclusion
The SILCS diaphragm used with N-9 gel performed well. It is likely that the SILCS diaphragm will give acceptable results in a contraceptive effectiveness study but that adjunctive use of a chemical barrier such as N-9 gel will be necessary for it to be most effective.
Keywords: Diaphragm, Postcoital test, SILCS, Nonoxynol-9
To access this article, please choose from the options below
☆ Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT 00561613.
☆☆ Support for this study was provided by CONRAD through USAID funding and, in part, by National Institutes of Health General Clinic Research Center Grants M01RR000056 at the University of Pittsburgh.
PII: S0010-7824(08)00283-7
doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.04.118
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
