Skip Navigation


Human Reproduction Update Advance Access originally published online on April 9, 2008
Human Reproduction Update 2008 14(3):197-208; doi:10.1093/humupd/dmn003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
14/3/197    most recent
dmn003v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Intrauterine devices and intrauterine systems

The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group

Correspondence address. P.G. Crosignani, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Milano, Via Commenda 12, 20122 Milano, Italy. E-mail: piergiorgio.crosignani{at}unimi.it

From a public health viewpoint, the intrauterine device (IUD) is the most widely used contraceptive method in the world. Prevalence rates range among countries from 2 to 80% of contraceptive users. During 5 years of IUD use, pregnancy occurs in less than 2 per 100 insertions. Bleeding and pain are the most common reasons for removal rates of 10% in the first year and up to 50% within 5 years. The contraceptive effects of IUDs may be due to a sterile inflammatory reaction in the endometrial cavity which interferes with sperm function, so that fertilization is less likely to occur. IUDs also interfere with implantation but the extent to which this contributes to their contraceptive action is unknown. In nulliparous women rates of expulsion and removal for bleeding and/or pain are higher than in parous women. Effective use of IUDs for up to 10 years has the same pregnancy rate as tubal interruption. Thus, the IUD may be an alternative to female sterilization, especially in younger women who are more likely to experience regret after sterilization. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) reduces bleeding and dysmenorrhoea, provides superior effectiveness to copper IUDs, and may be a useful treatment for endometriosis or an alternative to hysterectomy for menorrhagia.

Key words: contraception / family planning / intrauterine devices / intrauterine system / sterilization

Received on October 22, 2007; revised November 28, 2007; accepted on January 8, 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group
Female contraception over 40
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2009; 15(6): 599 - 612.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
T. Arase, H. Uchida, T. Kajitani, M. Ono, K. Tamaki, H. Oda, S. Nishikawa, M. Kagami, T. Nagashima, H. Masuda, et al.
The UDP-Glucose Receptor P2RY14 Triggers Innate Mucosal Immunity in the Female Reproductive Tract by Inducing IL-8
J. Immunol., June 1, 2009; 182(11): 7074 - 7084.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.