Human Reproduction Archives
https://humanreproductionarchives.com/article/doi/10.4322/hra.000521
Human Reproduction Archives
CASE REPORT Contraception

Ovary transmigration of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and ectopic pregnancy: a case report

Fernanda Marino Lafraia, Ana Luisa Dias Barbosa, Luisa Abreu Zorzanelli, Luiza Russo Morais, Fernanda Parciasepe Dittmer, Cristina Aparecida Falbo Guazzelli

Downloads: 2
Views: 338

Abstract

Introduction: Intrauterine devices (IUD) are safe long-term contraceptive methods frequently used. Though it is a rare event, the uterine perforation and migration of an IUD is possible. Case description: This study is based on a single patient who has been using Levonorgestrel (LNG)-IUD for the last two years without previous complications. A control ultrasound in October/2019 reported a normally placed LNG-IUD. However, in July/2020, she was admitted to our hospital with intermittent pain in the right iliac fossa associated with minor vaginal bleeding for the last 30 days. Her hCG level was 827,3 mUI/mL. The LNG-IUD was not identified in the ultrasound exam, and there was a mass of 5.6 centimeters with a hyperechogenic line in the right adnexa. In surgery, we found a right tubal ectopic pregnancy, and the LNG-IUD was located within the right ovary parenchyma, confirmed by pathological examination. We performed a right salpingo-oophorectomy, and there were no procedure complications. The patient presented good clinical evolution, receiving discharge the next day. Discussion: The spontaneous IUD migration can affect any adjacent structures, but the exact pathophysiology is unknown. Although uterine perforation and migration are rare complications, the medical team should discuss their possibility with the patient before IUD insertion. Moreover, professionals should be aware of this possibility and diagnose it rapidly to avoid further complications. With this case report we intend to review similar cases described previously and discuss the best options available for management of this complex situation.

Keywords

Ectopic pregnancy; Intrauterine Device Expulsion; Intrauterine Device Migration; Levonorgestrel; Ovary; Salpingo Oophorectomy

References

1. Jatlaoui TC, Riley HEM, Curtis KM. The safety of intrauterine devices among young women: a systematic review. Contraception. 2017;95(1):17-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.10.006. PMid:27771475.

2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Expert Work Group. Committee Opinion No 672: clinical challenges of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):e69-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001644. PMid:27548557.

3. Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Minh TD. Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on intrauterine devices. Contraception. 2015;91(4):274-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. contraception.2015.01.007. PMid:25601352.

4. Grootheest KV, Sachs B, Harrison-Woolrych M, Caduff-Janosa P, Puijenbroek EV. Uterine perforation with the levonorgestrelreleasing intrauterine device: analysis of reports from four national pharmacovigilance centres. Drug Saf. 2011;34(1):83-8. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2165/11585050-000000000-00000. PMid:21142273.

5. Makena D, Gichere I, Warfa K. Levonorgestrel intrauterine system embedded within tubal ectopic pregnancy: a case report. J Med Case Reports. 2021;15(1):107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13256-021-02723-7. PMid:33685513.

6. Ojutiku D, Cutner A, Rymer J. Ectopic pregnancy with levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system. Br J Fam Plann. 1998;24(2):85-6. PMid:9741986.

7. Goldstuck ND, Wildemeersch D. Role of uterine forces in intrauterine device embedment, perforation, and expulsion. Int J Womens Health. 2014;6:735-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S63167. PMid:25143756.

8. Pont M, Lantheaume S. Efficacité d’un stérilet au levonorgestrel migré en intra-abdominal. À propos d’un cas et revue de la littérature. J Gynécol Obstét Biol Reprod. 2009;38(2):179-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2009.01.005.

9. Panelli DM, Phillips CH, Brady PC. Incidence, diagnosis and management of tubal and nontubal ectopic pregnancies: a review. Fertil Res Pract. 2015;1(1):15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40738-015-0008-z. PMid:28620520.

10. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83(5):397-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. contraception.2011.01.021. PMid:21477680.

11. Graner S, Mc Taggart J, Nordström F, Melander E, Widenberg J, Kallner HK. Levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems (13.5 mg and 52 mg) and risk of ectopic pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(7):937-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ aogs.13564. PMid:30737766.

12. Peleg D, Latta R. Removal of an intraabdominal levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(6):e4-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.041. PMid:23467052.


Submitted date:
10/19/2021

Accepted date:
05/17/2023

649d61daa9539576ec1b6665 hra Articles
Links & Downloads

Hum Reprod Arch

Share this page
Page Sections