American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 197, Issue 2 , Pages 193.e1-193.e7 , August 2007

Intrauterine device use in a high-risk population: experience from an urban university clinic

Presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the South Atlantic Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Hot Springs, VA, Jan. 27-30, 2007; the John McCain Fellowship Award for the prize resident article.

  • Samuel J. Campbell, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
    • ,
  • Karen L. Cropsey, PsyD

      Affiliations

    • Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
    • ,
  • Catherine A. Matthews, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA

Received 16 October 2006 ,Revised 19 March 2007 ,Accepted 19 April 2007.

References 

  1. French R, Van Vliet H, Cowan F, et al. Hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs) versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;4:1–50
  2. Hubacher D, Grimes DA. Noncontraceptive health benefits of intrauterine devices: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2002;52:120–128
  3. Gareen IF, Greenland S, Morgenstern H. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: meta-analyses of published studies, 1974-1990. Epidemiology. 2000;11:589–597
  4. Hubacher D, Lara-Richalde R, Taylor DJ, Guerra-Infante F, Guzmán-Rodríguez R. Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:561–567
  5. Steen R, Shapiro K. Intrauterine contraceptive devices and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease: standard of care in high STI prevalence settings. Reprod Health Matters. 2004;12:136–143
  6. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine device insertion: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Contraception. 1999;60:57–63
  7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical management guidelines for obstetricians-gynecologists (ACOG practice bulletin no.: 59, January 2005). Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:223–232
  8. Peterson H, Curtis K. Long-acting methods of contraception. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2169–2175
  9. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. c. 2007. Paragard.com [homepage on the Internet]. Package Insert. [cited 2007 Mar 16]. Accessed March 16, 2007. Available at: http://www.paragard.com/paragard/index.php.
  10. Berlex Pharaceuticals, Inc. c 2007. Mirena.com [homepage on the Internet]. Package Insert. [cited 2007 Mar 16]. Accessed March 16, 2007. Available at: http://www.mirena-us.com/index.jspt.
  11. Halpern V, Grimes DA, Lopez L, Gallo MF. Strategies to improve adherence and acceptability of hormonal methods for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:1–24
  12. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of STD Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2005. Nov. 2006:1-186. Accessed March 16, 2007. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/05pdf/Surv2005.pdf.
  13. Centers for Disease Control. Sexually transmitted disease treatment guidelines, 2006. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006;55:1–94

 Cite this article as: Campbell SJ, Cropsey KL, Matthews CA. Intrauterine device use in a high-risk population: experience from an urban university clinic. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:193.e1-193.e7.Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0002-9378(07)00549-2

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.04.028

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 197, Issue 2 , Pages 193.e1-193.e7 , August 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution