Pregnancy outcomes with an IUD in situ: a systematic review



      While intrauterine devices (IUDs) provide highly effective contraception, pregnancies among IUD users do rarely occur. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the evidence about risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes among women who conceive with an IUD in situ.


      We searched MEDLINE, POPLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases from inception through April 2011 for peer-reviewed articles containing evidence related to pregnancy outcomes among women who conceived while using copper (Cu) and levonorgestrel-releasing (LNG) IUDs.


      Nine articles met our inclusion criteria. Women with retained IUDs were at the greatest risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, septic abortion and chorioamnionitis. Cu-IUD removal decreased risks but not to the baseline risk of pregnancies without an IUD. One case series examined the LNG-IUD; when left in situ, 8 in 10 ended in spontaneous abortions.


      Pregnancies complicated by a remaining IUD in situ were at greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Early IUD removal appeared to improve outcomes but did not entirely eliminate risks.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Trussell J.
        Contraceptive failure in the United States.
        Contraception. 2011; 83: 397-404
        • Mohllajee A.P.
        • Curtis K.M.
        • Flanagan R.G.
        • Rinehart W.
        • Gaffield M.L.
        • Peterson H.B.
        Keeping up with evidence. A new system for WHO's evidence-based family planning guidance.
        Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28: 483-490
        • Harris R.P.
        • Helfand M.
        • Woolf S.H.
        • et al.
        Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process.
        Am J Prev Med. 2001; 20: 21-35
        • Stroup D.F.
        • Berlin J.A.
        • Morton S.C.
        • et al.
        Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.
        JAMA. 2000; 283: 2008-2012
        • Backman T.
        • Rauramo I.
        • Huhtala S.
        • Koskenvuo M.
        Pregnancy during the use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190: 50-54
        • Chaim W.
        • Mazor M.
        Pregnancy with an intrauterine device in situ and preterm delivery.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1992; 252: 21-24
        • Ganer H.
        • Levy A.
        • Ohel I.
        • Sheiner E.
        Pregnancy outcome in women with an intrauterine contraceptive device.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201: 381.e1-381.e5
        • Inal M.M.
        • Ertopcu K.
        • Ozelmas I.
        The evaluation of 318 intrauterine pregnancy cases with an intrauterine device.
        Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2005; 10: 266-271
        • Kim S.K.
        • Romero R.
        • Kusanovic J.P.
        • et al.
        The prognosis of pregnancy conceived despite the presence of an intrauterine device (IUD).
        J Perinat Med. 2010; 38: 45-53
        • Mermet J.
        • Bolcato C.
        • Rudigoz R.C.
        • Dargent D.
        Outcome of pregnancies with an intrauterine devices and their management.
        Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet. 1986; 81: 233-235
        • Tatum H.J.
        • Schmidt F.H.
        • Jain A.K.
        Management and outcome of pregnancies associated with the copper T intrauterine contraceptive device.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976; 126: 869-879
        • von Theobald P.
        • Duchemin J.M.
        • Levy G.
        The outcome of continuing pregnancies in patients with intrauterine devices. A retrospective study from the Maternity Unit of the University Hospital Center at Caen during the period 1985–1988.
        J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1990; 19: 863-868
        • Deveer R.
        • Engin-Ustun Y.
        • Sarikaya E.
        • Aydogan P.
        • Doganay M.
        • Mollamahmutoglu L.
        Comparison of C-reactive protein levels in pregnancies with retained and removed intrauterine device.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011; (Jan 13. [Epub ahead of print])
        • Kirkinen P.
        • Simojoki M.
        • Kivela A.
        • Jouppila P.
        Ultrasound-controlled removal of a dislocated intrauterine device in the first trimester of pregnancy: a report of 26 cases.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 2: 345-348
        • Schiesser M.
        • Lapaire O.
        • Tercanli S.
        • Holzgreve W.
        Lost intrauterine devices during pregnancy: maternal and fetal outcome after ultrasound-guided extraction. An analysis of 82 cases.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 23: 486-489
        • Shalev J.
        • Greif M.
        • Ben-Rafael Z.
        • Itzchak Y.
        • Serr D.M.
        Continuous sonographic monitoring of IUD extraction during pregnancy: preliminary report.
        Am J Roentgenol. 1982; 139: 521-523
        • Hopkins M.R.
        • Agudelo-Suarez P.
        • El-Nashar S.A.
        • Creedon D.J.
        • Rose C.H.
        • Famuyide A.O.
        Term pregnancy with intraperitoneal levonorgestrel intrauterine system: a case report and review of the literature.
        Contraception. 2009; 79: 323-327
        • CDC
        Update on overall prevalence of major birth defects — Atlanta, Georgia, 1978–2005.
        MMWR. 2008; 57: 1-5