Premium
Modern Intra‐uterine Contraceptive Devices
Author(s) -
Baeyertz J.
Publication year - 1971
Publication title -
australian and new zealand journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.734
H-Index - 65
eISSN - 1479-828X
pISSN - 0004-8666
DOI - 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1971.tb00464.x
Subject(s) - spiral (railway) , medicine , miscarriage , pregnancy rate , pregnancy , obstetrics , contraceptive devices , family planning , population , research methodology , engineering , biology , mechanical engineering , environmental health , genetics
Summary: Comparative results are presented with the use of the Margulie's spiral (“Gynekoil”) and Lippe's loop in 500 women in private practice over a period of 5 years. In this series there were no pregnancies due to undetected expulsion, but the pregnancy rate with the device in situ was 1.7 per 100 women years with the spiral and 0.9 for the loop. However, owing to a miscarriage rate of 70%, the term pregnancy rate was 0.42. The only major problem experienced was menorrhagia; 20% of patients with the spiral compared with 3.3% of those with the loop required removal of the device for this reason. The initial expulsion rate was 10% for the spiral and 4.6% for the loop, but since two‐thirds of the patients were able to retain the device on re‐insertion, only 3% of the total discontinued for this reason. The infection rate was 1% and there were no known perforations. The loop was found to be superior to the spiral in every way and it is not surprising that manufacture of the spiral has since been discontinued. It thus appears that the modern I.U.C.D. has a reasonable acceptability rate and meets an increasing demand for some alternative to oral contraceptives. However, its use ideally requires a certain degree of selection, skill, and supervision and although possessing some advantages over other methods, it cannot be regarded as the perfect contraceptive.