Clinical performance of a new two-rod levonorgestrel contraceptive implant: A three-year randomized study with Norplant® implants as controls

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.


      In a randomized three-year clinical trial at seven clinics, the performance of levonorgestrel rod (LNG ROD) implants used by 600 women was compared with that of soft tubing NORPLANT implants used by 598 women. No pregnancies occurred in either group of women and, accordingly, body weight did not affect the efficacy of either type of implant. There were neither statistically significant nor important differences in termination rates for any reason over the three years. Complaint and illness rates during use of either of the two implant types were statistically indistinguishable and were attributable to the same set of conditions. Seventy-one per 100 of the women using each implant regimen continued to the three-year point, for an average annual continuation rate of 89 per 100. Removals of LNG ROD implants were accomplished in about half the time required for removal of Norplant capsule implants (p < 0.001).



        • Robertson DN
        • Sivin I
        • Nash HA
        • Braun H
        • Dinh J
        Release of levonorgestrel from Silastic® capsules, homogeneous rods and covered rods in humans.
        Contraception. 1983; 27: 483-495
        • Roy S
        • Mishell Jr, DR
        • Robertson DN
        • Krauss RM
        • Lacarra M
        • Duda MJ
        Long-term reversible contraception with levonorgestrel-releasing Silastic rods.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 148: 1006-1013
        • Sivin I
        International experience with Norplant and Norplant®-2 contraceptives.
        Stud Fam Plann. 1988; 19: 81-94
        • Koetsawang S
        • Kiriwat O
        • Piya-Anant M
        • et al.
        Experience with Norplant®-2 in Thai women.
        in: Ratnam SS Teoh E-S Lim S-M Advances in fertility and sterility, series v6: contraception. The Parthenon Publishing Group, Carnforth, UK1987: 133-142
        • Gu S-J
        • Du M-K
        • Yuan D-Y
        • et al.
        A two-year study of acceptability, side effects, and effectiveness of Norplant® and Norplant®-2 implants in the People's Republic of China.
        Contraception. 1988; 38: 641-657
        • Singh K
        • Viegas OAC
        • Ratnam SS
        Acceptability of Norplant®-2 as a method of family planning.
        Contraception. 1992; 45: 453-461
        • Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) Task Force on Hormonal Contraception
        Phase III clinical trial with Norplant®-II (two covered rods): report on five years of use.
        Contraception. 1993; 48: 120-132
        • Gu S-J
        • Du M-K
        • Zhang L-d
        • et al.
        A five-year evaluation of Norplant®-II implants in China.
        Contraception. 1994; 50: 27-34
        • Singh K
        • Viegas OAC
        • Fong YF
        • Ratnam SS
        Acceptability of Norplant® implants for fertility regulation in Singapore.
        Contraception. 1992; 45: 39-47
        • Sivin I
        Contraception with Norplant® implants.
        Human Reprod. 1994; 9: 1818-1826
      1. WHO Adverse reaction dictionary.
        31 Dec 1993 (Uppsala, Sweden)
        • Fowler P
        Subdermal implants—still a viable long-term contraceptive option?.
        Brit J Family Plann. 1996; 22: 31-33
        • Sivin I
        • Stern J
        • Diaz S
        • et al.
        Rates and outcomes of planned pregnancy after use of Norplant capsule, Norplant-II rods or levonorgestrel-releasing or copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166: 1208-1213
        • Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) Task Force on Hormonal Contraception
        Return of fertility following discontinuation of Norplant-II subdermal implants.
        Contraception. 1995; 51: 237-242
        • Trussell J
        • Leveque JA
        • Koenig JD
        • et al.
        The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods.
        Am J Public Health. 1995; 85: 494-503