Intrauterine contraceptive device
Citation, DOI and article data
Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUCD) (also known as intrauterine devices (IUD) and colloquially commonly as the coil) are one of the most frequently used methods of contraception throughout the world. It prevents pregnancy by:
- thinning the endometrial lining
- preventing sperm motility
- preventing implantation
There are two main types of intrauterine contraceptive devices:
- non-hormonal metallic
- copper: pure copper or alloyed with gold/silver
- stainless steel: a.k.a. Chinese ring, manufacture ceased in 2000
- hormonal (e.g. Mirena®)
The preferred abbreviation for an intrauterine contraceptive device is IUCD. Occasionally IUD is employed instead, however, this shortening is disliked by some specialists as it is also used as an abbreviation for intrauterine death.
- spontaneous IUCD expulsion: passage in or through the external cervical os
- abnormal rotation or inferior position in the lower uterine segment or cervix
- IUCD position >3-4 mm has been associated with an increased likelihood of IUCD related symptoms, such as pain and bleeding 2,9 as well as expulsion 10 - although further studies have shown that most low IUCDs migrate to the fundus after a few months 6
- asymptomatic displacement of a hormone-releasing IUCD (e.g. Mirena®) may not affect its efficacy in prevention of pregnancy, according to some studies 6-8; in contrast, for copper IUCDs, displacement from the fundal position is associated with higher rates of inadvertent pregnancy 7
- IUCD embedment: penetration into the myometrium, but not through the serosa
- IUCD perforation: penetration through myometrium and serosa
- three-fold increased risk of generalized pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)
- pregnancy-associated with IUCD
- associated pregnancy with spontaneous miscarriage
- IUCD retention
- IUCD fragmentation
- all intrauterine contraceptive devices are radiopaque (by design) 6
- most often 'T-shaped' or at times seen as a serpiginous structure, as in the case of a Lippes' Loop.
- preferred modality for assessing an intrauterine contraceptive device
- properly-placed IUCD may be visualized as a straight hyperechoic structure in the endometrial canal of the uterus and the arms of the IUCD extending laterally at the uterine fundus
- often causes posterior acoustic shadowing
- distance from the uterine fundus >4 mm is more often associated with symptoms such as bleeding and pain, as well as with a higher risk of expulsion or displacement 2 although most low IUCDs migrate to the fundus in a few months 6
- in cases where it becomes embedded, a part of it may be visualized within the myometrium
3D ultrasound may be useful to help visualize the IUCD location (especially with serpiginous IUCDs) 2.
- hyperattenuating structures with metallic density
The MRI compatibility of intrauterine contraceptive devices may be of concern to women undergoing MRI examinations. Generally speaking, stainless steel devices are unsafe and non-metallic devices are considered safe. Copper devices have been found to be "conditionally safe" at 1.5 and 3.0 T 11.
History and etymology
The forerunner to the intrauterine contraceptive device was first introduced by the German physician, Richard Richter of Waldenburg, in 1909 4,5. His device comprised a loop of silkworm gut placed into the endometrial cavity 5.
The contraceptive efficacy of non-fundal placement of an IUCD cannot be guaranteed. Measuring the distance between the fundal end of the cavity and the superior end of the IUCD is important when assessing placement. Low-lying IUCDs (those that are over 2 cm from the fundal end of the cavity) should be reported and the measurement included in the report 12.
- 1. Weissleder R, Wittenberg J, Harisinghani MM et-al. Primer of Diagnostic Imaging, Expert Consult- Online and Print. Mosby. (2011) ISBN:0323065384. Read it at Google Books - Find it at Amazon
- 2. Boortz HE, Margolis DJ, Ragavendra N et-al. Migration of intrauterine devices: radiologic findings and implications for patient care. Radiographics. 2012;32 (2): 335-52. doi:10.1148/rg.322115068 - Pubmed citation
- 3. Peri N, Graham D, Levine D. Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26 (10): 1389-401. J Ultrasound Med (full text) - Pubmed citation
- 4. Robert Jütte. Contraception. (2008) ISBN: 9780745632704
- 5. Margulies L. History of intrauterine devices. (1975) Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 51 (5): 662-7. Pubmed
- 6. Nowitzki KM, Hoimes ML, Chen B, Zheng LZ, Kim YH. Ultrasonography of intrauterine devices. (2015) Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea). 34 (3): 183-94. doi:10.14366/usg.15010 - Pubmed
- 7. Dirk Wildemeersch, Thomas Hasskamp, Norman D Goldstuck. Malposition and displacement of intrauterine devices–diagnosis, management and prevention. (2016) doi:10.15761/COGRM.1000145
- 8. Pakarinen P, Luukkainen T. Five years' experience with a small intracervical/intrauterine levonorgestrel-releasing device. (2005) Contraception. 72 (5): 342-5. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2005.05.013 - Pubmed
- 9. Aleem HA, Kamel HS, Aboul-Oyoun EM. Role of ultrasonography in managing IUD-related complaints. (1992) Contraception. 46 (3): 211-20. Pubmed
- 10. Orawan Tangtongpet, Wicharn Choktanasiri, Sanya Patrachai, Nathpong Israngura Na Ayudhya. Intrauterine Location and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device. (2017) Thai Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
- 11. Bussmann S, Luechinger R, Froehlich JM, von Weymarn C, Reischauer C, Koh DM, Gutzeit A. Safety of intrauterine devices in MRI. (2018) PloS one. 13 (10): e0204220. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204220 - Pubmed
- 12. FSRH Clinical Guideline: Intrauterine Contraception (April 2015, amended September 2019). Guidline