Casuistic cases of migration of the intrauterine device




IUD, migration, perforation, endometrium


The purpose of this article is to provide information of isolated cases of migration of intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUD), familiarity with them will be useful in medical practice.

In analyzing the medical literature related to the migration of the IUD, a large range of ectopic spirals and a variety of clinical manifestations attract attention. Usually setting the IUD is not difficult. However, complications can sometimes occur: infection, uterine bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, and uterine perforation. This does not happen very often, but at the same time there are potentially serious complications.

In cases of complete perforation, the IUD may migrate to various intra-abdominal structures. Thus, according to the analysis of medical literature, most often the IUD migrates into the greater omentum (26.7%), Douglas space (21.5%), the lumen of the colon (10.4%), myometrium (7.4%), wide ligament of the uterus (6.7%), abdominal cavity (5.2%), small intestine

(4.4%), large intestine (3.7%), bladder, groin, ovaries, fallopian tubes.

Women with chronic pelvic pain on the background of an established IUD should be carefully examined for possible uterine perforation or intrauterine migration. In the differential diagnosis of the causes of pain syndrome, the main role is played by ultrasound examination and hysteroscopy, which allows you to accurately determine the position of the IUD in the uterus or outside it. However, in cases of partial migration, additional clarifying diagnostic methods are used. Computed tomography is effective for determining the location of the IUD, its relationship with neighboring structures, and allows to evaluate other possible causes of dysfunction of the urinary tract. All modern IUDs are radiopaque, therefore, to determine their localization is also used survey X-ray. The range of methods for extracting migrated IUDs is quite diverse, but endoscopic techniques are priorities.

Despite the contradictory views on the management of women with an ectopic arrangement of the IUD and the absence of any symptoms, all ectopic contraceptives should be removed as soon as possible after the diagnosis, taking into account the type and localization of the IUD.

Author Biographies

Н. В. Косей, State Institution “O.M. Lukyanova Institute of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology of the NAMS of Ukraine”

MD, chief researcher at the Endocrine Gynecology Department

О. А. Гюльмамедова, Institute for planning family “IPF”


Н. М. Євтушенко, Medical centre “Verum” clinic

Highest category, deputy director for surgical work


  1. World Contraceptive Use. New York. United Nations. Population Division (2005).
  2. Chandraб A., Martinez, G.M., Mosher, W.D., et al. “Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of US women: data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.” Vital Health Stat 23 (2005): 1–160.
  3. Ministry of Health of Ukraine. “Unified clinical protocol of primary, secondary (specialized), tertiary (highly specialized) medical care «Family planning».”
  4. Sufrin, C.B., Postlethwaite, D., Armstrong, M.A., et al. “Neisseria gonorrhea and chlamydia trachomatis screening at intrauterine device insertion and pelvic inflammatory disease.” Obstet Gynecol 120 (2012): 1314–21.
  5. Farley, T.M., Rosenberg, M.J., Rowe, P.J., et al. “Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective.” Lancet 339 (1992): 785–8.
  6. Rosenberg, M.J., Foldesy, R., Mishell, D.R. Jr., et al. “Performance of the TCu380A and Cu-Fix IUDs in an international randomized trail.” Contraception 53 (1996): 197–203.
  7. Champion, C.B., Behlilovic, B., Arosemena, J.M., et al. “A three-year evaluation of TCu 380 Ag and multiload Cu 375 intrauterine devices.” Contraception 38 (1988): 631–9.
  8. Avci, F., Kiran, H., Bakacak, M., et al. “An Intrauterine Device Detected in Ovary during Cesarean Section: A Case Report.” International Journal of Women’s Health and Reproduction Sciences 3.1 (2015): 72–4.
  9. Skjeldestad, F.E. “How effectively do copper intrauterine devices prevent ectopic pregnancy?” Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 76 (1997): 684–90.
  10. Chi, I., Feldblum, P.J., Rogers, S.M. “IUD – related uterine perforation: an epidemiologic analysis of a rare event using an international dataset.” Contracept Deliv Syst 5 (1984): 123–130.
  11. Arslan, A., Kanat-Pektas, M., Yesilyurt, H., et al. “Colon penetration by a copper intrauterine device: A case report with literature review.” Arch Gynecol Obstet 279.3 (2009): 395-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-008-0716-2
  12. Badr, D.A., et al. “Tubal Migration of Intrauterine Device: A Report of a RareCase of Trauma-Induced Migration Leading to AcuteAbdomen.” J Clin Gynecol Obstet 6.3–4 (2017): 75–8.
  13. Elleithy, T.R., Ismail, M.A., Ghobashy, S.E., et al. “Perforating Intravesical Intrauterine Devices: Diagnosis and Treatment.” J Urol Int 1.5 (2008).
  14. Akpinar, F., Ozgur, E.N., Yilmaz, S., et al. “Sigmoid colon migration of an intrauterine device.” Case Rep Obstet Gynecol (2014): 207659.
  15. Pichugin, A.P., Novoseltseva, O.V. “A rare complication after the installation of an intrauterine contraceptive.” Pacific Medical Journal 1 (2006): 94–5.
  16. Byrd, L. “The lost intrauterine device: removal by hysterectomy.” Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care 30.3 (2004): 174–5.
  17. Akinola, R., Akinola, O., Akpan, E., Akinoso, O. “Unsuspected Multiple Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices In An Infertile Woman: A Case Report.” The Internet Journal of Radiology 7.2 (2006).
  18. Istanbulluoglu, M.O., Ozcimen, E.E., Ozturk, B., et al. “Bladder perforation related to intrauterine device.” J Chin Med Assoc 71 (2008): 207–9.



How to Cite

Косей, Н. В., Гюльмамедова, О. А., & Євтушенко, Н. М. (2018). Casuistic cases of migration of the intrauterine device. REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY, (43), 44–47.