Advertisement

Copper IUDs in Nulliparous Women

  • R. Percival Smith
Part of the Developments in Obstetrics and Gynecology book series (DIOG, volume 5)

Abstract

Prior to the introduction of the Cu-7-200 and the Cu-T200 IUDs, the small plastic devices, Lippes Loop, Saf-T-Coil and Dalkon Shield, were not accepted as well by nulliparous women as by parous women, there being higher rates of pregnancy, and of expulsion and removal due to bleeding and pain. Results obtained in nulliparous women with the Cu-7s and Cu-Ts were only marginally different from those achieved in parous women with respect to expulsion and removals for bleeding and pain. The pregnancy rate with copper IUDs does not differ between nulliparous and parous women. The controversy lies in the possible effect that the copper IUDs may have on the future fertility of the young nullipara who chooses the IUD as her method of contraception. Nobody will dispute the fact that pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is more frequent in nulliparous IUD wearers compared to women using other methods of contraception (Westrom et al. 1976).

Keywords

Pregnancy Rate Obstet Gynecol Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Nulliparous Woman Parous Woman 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Study of the Copper-T200 and Copper-7 intrauterine devices with modified insertion techniques. Am 5 Obstet Gynecol 120: 1 – 10, 1974.Google Scholar
  2. Barranco VP: Eczematous dermatitis caused by internal exposure to copper. Arch Dermatol 106: 386, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beling CG et al: Demonstration of chorionic gonadotropin during the second half of the cycle of women using IUD contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol 125: 855, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernard RP: Factors governing IUD performance. Am J Public Health 61: 559 – 567, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. British Medical Journal: Editorial: the nulliparous patient, the IUD and subsequent fertility. Br Med J 2 (6132): 233, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. Burnhill MS: Prescriptive approaches to IUD usage. In: Intra- uterine devices, Wheeler RG et al (eds.), New York, Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  7. Byrnes AJ: Allergy to copper in intra-uterine devices. Med J Aust 2 (11): 532 – 533, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. cOlCheng Chi I et al: An epidemiologic study of intrauterine contraceptive devices: a preliminary report. In: Risks, benefits, and controversies in fertility control, Sciarra JJ et al (eds.), New York, Harper and Row, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. Eschenbach DA: Acute pelvic inflammatory disease etiology, risk factors, and pathogenesis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 19: 147, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. Fiscina B, et al: Gonococcicidal action of copper in vitro. Am J Obstet Gynecol 116: 86, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibor Y, et al: Uterine.length: a prognostic indicator for successful use of the Copper-7 IUD. J Reprod Med 11(5): 205– 208, 1973.Google Scholar
  12. Jain AK: Safety and effectiveness of intrauterine devices. Contraception 1 (3): 243, 1975a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jain AK: Comparative performance of three types of IUD in the United States. In: Analysis of intrauterine contraception, Hefnawi F, Segal SD (eds), Amsterdam, North-Holland Bio-medical Press, 1975b.Google Scholar
  14. Jain AK, Moots B: Fecundability following the discontinuation of IUD use among Taiwanese women. J Biosoc Sei 9 (2): 137– 152, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. Klein TA, et al: Absence of circulatory chorionic gonadotropin in wearers of IUDs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 129 (6): 626–628, 1977.Google Scholar
  16. Liedhom P, et al: Two years experience with Copper-T200 in a Swedish population: a comparison between nulliparous and parous women. Contraception 10 (1): 55 – 61, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lippes J, et al: The post-coital Copper-T. Adv Plann Parent 11 (1): 24 – 29, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Luthra VK et al.: Role of Cu IUD in cervical carcinogenesis: a followup of 36 months. Indian J Med Res 68: 78 – 83, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Measham AR, et al: The role of the family in post-partum family planning acceptance. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 12: 66 – 71, 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mishell DR Jr: In: Risks, benefits and controversies in fertility control, Sciarra JJ, et al (eds), New York, Harper and Row, 1978.Google Scholar
  21. Mishell DR Jr, et al.: Pregnancy related complications and bleeding problems with IUDs. A study of the Copper-T intra-uterine device (T-Cu-200) in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gunecol 116: 1092, 1973.Google Scholar
  22. Misra JS, et al: Cytological studies in women using copper intra-uterine devices. Acta Cytol Scand 21 (4): 514 – 8, 1977.Google Scholar
  23. Newton JR, et al: Intrauterine contraception using the copper-7 device. Lancet 2: 951, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newton JR, et al: In: Analysis of intrauterine contraception, Hefnawi F, Segal SJ (eds), Amsterdam, North-Holland Bio-medical Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  25. Osser S, et al: Is development of PID in women using IUDs equal regardless of parity: one-year follow-up. Contraception 17 (6): 563, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Percival-Smith R: An educative approach to pelvic examination in young women. Can Family Physician 24: 357 – 361, 1978.Google Scholar
  27. Reading AE, et al: The effects of psychological preparation on pain at intrauterine device insertion. Contraception 16 (5): 523 – 532, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reading AE, et al: Psychological factors in IUD use: a review J Biosoc Sei 9: 317 – 323, 1977.Google Scholar
  29. Rubinstein E: The Cu-7 device in chronic and IUD-induced acute cervicitis treated with oral estriol. Contraception 10 (6): 673 – 683, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salmi T, et al: Cervical Bacterial flora in women fitted with a copper-releasing intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 55: 317, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaila NG et al: A comparative randomized double blind study of copper T 200 and copper 7 intrauterine contraceptive devices with modified insertion techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 120 (1): 110, Sept 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sivin I: Copper-T IUD use and ectopic pregnancy rates in the United States. Contraception 19 (2): 151 – 174, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Snowden R, et al: Social and medical factors in the use and effectiveness of IUDs. J Biosoc Sei 5: 31 – 49, 1973.Google Scholar
  34. Spellacy WW, et al: The effect of copper intrauterine devices on endocervical gonococcicidal cultures. Fertil Steril 25: 772, 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tatum H: Clinical aspects of intrauterine contraception: circumspection 1976. Obstet Gynecol Annu, 1978.Google Scholar
  36. Tatum H, Schmidt F: Contraceptive and sterilization practices and extrauterine pregnancy: a realistic perspective. Fertil Steril 24 (4): 407 – 421, 1977.Google Scholar
  37. Weiner E, et al: Copper intrauterine contraception devices in adolescent nullipara. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 85: 204 – 206, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Westrom L, et al: The risk of pelvic inflammatory disease in women using intrauterine contraceptive devices as compared with non-users. Lancet 2: 221, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Willson JR, et al: IUD: a comparison between their use in indigent and private patients. Obstet Gynecol 29: 59 – 66, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers bv, The Hague 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Percival Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations