Six-month expulsion of postplacental copper intrauterine devices placed after vaginal delivery


      Immediate placement of an intrauterine device after vaginal delivery is safe and convenient, but longitudinal data describing clinical outcomes have been limited.


      We sought to determine the proportion of TCu380A (copper) intrauterine devices expelled, partially expelled, malpositioned, and retained, as well as contraceptive use by 6 months postpartum, and determine risk factors for expulsion and partial expulsion.

      Study Design

      In this prospective, observational study, women who received a postplacental TCu380A intrauterine device at vaginal delivery were enrolled postpartum. Participants returned for clinical follow-up at 6 weeks, and for a research visit with a pelvic exam and ultrasound at 6 months. We recorded intrauterine device outcomes and 6-month contraceptive use. Partial expulsion was defined as an intrauterine device protruding from the external cervical os, or a transvaginal ultrasound showing the distal end of the intrauterine device below the internal os of the cervix. Multinomial logistic regression models identified risk factors associated with expulsion and partial expulsion by 6 months. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was used to assess the ability of a string check to predict the correct placement of a postplacental intrauterine device. The primary outcome was the proportion of intrauterine devices expelled at 6 months.


      We enrolled 200 women. Of 162 participants with follow-up data at 6 months, 13 (8.0%; 95% confidence interval, 4.7–13.4%) experienced complete expulsion and 26 (16.0%; 95% confidence interval, 11.1–22.6%) partial expulsion. Of 25 malpositioned intrauterine devices (15.4%; 95% confidence interval, 10.2–21.9%), 14 were not at the fundus (8.6%; 95% confidence interval, 5.2–14.1%) and 11 were rotated within the uterus (6.8%; 95% confidence interval, 3.8–11.9%). Multinomial logistic regression modeling indicated that higher parity (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.21–3.50; P = .008) was associated with expulsion. Provider specialty (obstetrics vs family medicine; odds ratio, 5.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.20–23.59; P = .03) and gestational weight gain (normal vs excess; odds ratio, 9.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.90–43.82; P = .004) were associated with partial expulsion. Long-acting reversible contraceptive method use at 6 months was 80.9% (95% confidence interval, 74.0–86.6%). At 6 weeks postpartum, 35 of 149 (23.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9–31.1%) participants had no intrauterine device strings visible. Sensitivity of a string check to detect an incorrectly positioned intrauterine device was 36.2%, and specificity of the string check to predict a correctly positioned intrauterine device was 84.5%. This corresponds to an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.5.


      This prospective assessment of postplacental TCu380A intrauterine device placement, with ultrasound to confirm device position, finds a complete intrauterine device expulsion proportion of 8.0% at 6 months. The association of increasing parity with expulsion is consistent with prior research. The clinical significance of covariates associated with partial expulsion (provider specialty and gestational weight gain) is unclear. Due to the observational study design, any associations cannot imply causality. The proportion of partially expelled and malpositioned intrauterine devices was high, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.5 indicates that a string check is a poor test for assessing device position. Women considering a postplacental intrauterine device should be counseled about the risk of position abnormalities, as well as the possibility of nonvisible strings, which may complicate clinical follow-up. The clinical significance of intrauterine device position abnormalities is unknown; future research should evaluate the influence of malposition and partial expulsion on contraceptive effectiveness and side effects.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. ACOG. Optimizing postpartum care. Committee opinion no. 736.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 131: e140-e150
        • Winner B.
        • Peipert J.F.
        • Zhao Q.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 1998-2007
        • Washington C.I.
        • Jamshidi R.
        • Thung S.F.
        • Nayeri U.A.
        • Caughey A.B.
        • Werner E.F.
        Timing of postpartum intrauterine device placement: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Fertil Steril. 2015; 103: 131-137
        • Speroff L.
        • Mishell Jr., D.R.
        The postpartum visit: it's time for a change in order to optimally initiate contraception.
        Contraception. 2008; 78: 90-98
      2. Medicaid reimbursement for postpartum LARC by state: American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2017 October 18, 2017. Available at: Accessed July 9, 2018.

        • Sonalkar S.
        • Kapp N.
        Intrauterine device insertion in the postpartum period: a systematic review.
        Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015; 20: 4-18
        • Eggebroten J.L.
        • Sanders J.N.
        • Turok D.K.
        Immediate postpartum intrauterine device and implant program outcomes: a prospective analysis.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217: 51.e1-51.e7
        • Jatlaoui T.C.
        • Marcus M.
        • Jamieson D.J.
        • Goedken P.
        • Cwiak C.
        Postplacental intrauterine device insertion at a teaching hospital.
        Contraception. 2014; 89: 528-533
        • Goldthwaite L.M.
        • Sheeder J.
        • Hyer J.
        • Tocce K.
        • Teal S.B.
        Postplacental intrauterine device expulsion by 12 weeks: a prospective cohort study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217: 674.e1-674.e8
        • Xu J.X.
        • Rivera R.
        • Dunson T.R.
        • et al.
        A comparative study of two techniques used in immediate postplacental insertion (IPPI) of the copper T-380A IUD in Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
        Contraception. 1996; 54: 33-38
        • Celen S.
        • Moroy P.
        • Sucak A.
        • Aktulay A.
        • Danisman N.
        Clinical outcomes of early postplacental insertion of intrauterine contraceptive devices.
        Contraception. 2004; 69: 279-282
        • Shukla M.
        • Qureshi S.
        • Chandrawati
        Post-placental intrauterine device insertion–a five year experience at a tertiary care center in north India.
        Indian J Med Res. 2012; 136: 432-435
        • Simonson K.
        • Gerard N.
        • Pomerantz T.
        • Mullersman K.
        • Landy U.
        Improving access and training for LARC: evaluation of the Ryan LARC program.
        Contraception. 2014; 90 ([abstract]): 323-324
        • Xu J.
        • Yang X.
        • Gu X.
        • et al.
        Comparison between two techniques used in immediate postplacental insertion of TCu 380A intrauterine device: 36-month follow-up.
        Reprod Contracept. 1999; 10: 156-162
        • Eroglu K.
        • Akkuzu G.
        • Vural G.
        • et al.
        Comparison of efficacy and complications of IUD insertion in immediate postplacental/early postpartum period with interval period: 1 year follow-up.
        Contraception. 2006; 74: 376-381
      3. Rasmussen K.M. Yaktine A.L. Weight gain during pregnancy: reexamining the guidelines. Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC2009
        • Lopez L.M.
        • Bernholc A.
        • Hubacher D.
        • Stuart G.
        • Van Vliet H.A.
        Immediate postpartum insertion of intrauterine device for contraception.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 6: CD003036
        • Levi E.E.
        • Stuart G.S.
        • Zerden M.L.
        • Garrett J.M.
        • Bryant A.G.
        Intrauterine device placement during cesarean delivery and continued use 6 months postpartum: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 126: 5-11
        • Colwill A.C.
        • Schreiber C.A.
        • Sammel M.D.
        • Sonalkar S.
        Six-week retention after postplacental copper intrauterine device placement.
        Contraception. 2018; 97: 215-218
        • Chen B.A.
        • Reeves M.F.
        • Hayes J.L.
        • Hohmann H.L.
        • Perriera L.K.
        • Creinin M.D.
        Postplacental or delayed insertion of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device after vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1079-1087
        • Sucak A.
        • Ozcan S.
        • Celen S.
        • Caglar T.
        • Goksu G.
        • Danisman N.
        Immediate postplacental insertion of a copper intrauterine device: a pilot study to evaluate expulsion rate by mode of delivery.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15: 202
        • Whitaker A.K.
        • Chen B.A.
        Society of Family Planning guidelines: postplacental insertion of intrauterine devices.
        Contraception. 2018; 97: 2-13
        • Sivin I.
        • Shaaban M.
        • Odlind V.
        • et al.
        A randomized trial of the Gyne T 380 and Gyne T 380 Slimline intrauterine copper devices.
        Contraception. 1990; 42: 379-389
        • Bahamondes L.
        • Diaz J.
        • Petta C.
        • Monteiro I.
        • Monteiro C.D.
        • Regina C.H.
        Comparison of the performances of TCu380A and TCu380S IUDs up to five years.
        Adv Contracept. 1999; 15: 275-281
        • O'Brien P.A.
        • Kulier R.
        • Helmerhorst F.M.
        • Usher-Patel M.
        • d'Arcangues C.
        Copper-containing, framed intrauterine devices for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
        Contraception. 2008; 77: 318-327
        • Anteby E.
        • Revel A.
        • Ben-Chetrit A.
        • Rosen B.
        • Tadmor O.
        • Yagel S.
        Intrauterine device failure: relation to its location within the uterine cavity.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 81: 112-114
        • Melo J.
        • Tschann M.
        • Soon R.
        • Kuwahara M.
        • Kaneshiro B.
        Women's willingness and ability to feel the strings of their intrauterine device.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017; 137: 309-313
        • Wilcox A.
        • Levi E.E.
        • Garrett J.M.
        Predictors of non-attendance to the postpartum follow-up visit.
        Matern Child Health J. 2016; 20: 22-27
        • Thiel de Bocanegra H.
        • Braughton M.
        • Bradsberry M.
        • Howell M.
        • Logan J.
        • Schwarz E.B.
        Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum care and contraception in California's Medicaid program.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217: 47.e1-47.e7
        • Bennett W.L.
        • Chang H.Y.
        • Levine D.M.
        • et al.
        Utilization of primary and obstetric care after medically complicated pregnancies: an analysis of medical claims data.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2014; 29: 636-645
        • Chen M.J.
        • Hou M.Y.
        • Hsia J.K.
        • Cansino C.D.
        • Melo J.
        • Creinin M.D.
        Long-acting reversible contraception initiation with a 2- to 3-week compared with a 6-week postpartum visit.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130: 788-794
        • Ratsula K.
        Clinical performance of a levonorgestrel-releasing intracervical contraceptive device during the first 2 years of use.
        Contraception. 1989; 39: 187-193