Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  18 (2024)
Volume  17 (2023)
Volume  16 (2022)
Volume  15 (2021)
Volume  14 (2020)
Volume  13 (2019)
Volume  12 (2018)
Volume  11 (2017)
Volume  10 (2016)
Volume  9 (2015)
Volume  8 (2014)
Volume  7 (2013)
Volume  6 (2012)
Volume  5 (2011)
Volume  4 (2010)
Volume  3 (2009)
Volume  2 (2008)
Volume  1 (2007)
Related articles

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2012 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Role of Ultrasound in the Assessment of Intrauterine Device Complications

Ahmed S Ansari, Thomas G Tullius, Jason R Ross

Keywords : Intrauterine device,Pelvic pain,Abnormal uterine bleeding,Contraception,Pelvic inflammatory disease,Uterine perforation,Uterine anomalies,Ultrasound

Citation Information : Ansari AS, Tullius TG, Ross JR. The Role of Ultrasound in the Assessment of Intrauterine Device Complications. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 6 (3):318-326.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1255

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-09-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; The Author(s).


Abstract

How to cite this article

Ansari AS, Tullius TG Jr, Ross JR, Plavsic SK. The Role of Ultrasound in the Assessment of Intrauterine Device Complications. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;6(3):318-326.

PDF Share
  1. Family Planning Worldwide, 2002 Data Sheet. http://www.prb.org/pdf/FamPlanWorlwide_Eng.pdf
  2. Contraception-associated menstrual problems: Etiology and management. Dialogues Contracept 1998;5:1.
  3. Malpositioned intrauterine contraceptive devices: Risk factors, outcomes, and future pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118(5):1014.
  4. Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26(10):1389.
  5. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1987;753:1.
  6. Operative management of intrauterine device complications: A case series report. Contraception 2010;82(4):354.
  7. Risk factors for IUD failure: Results of a large multicentre casecontrol study. Hum Reprod 2006;21(10):2612.
  8. Malpositioned intrauterine contraceptive devices: Risk factors, outcomes, and future pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118(5):1014-20.
  9. Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey. Contraception 1998;57(4):251.
  10. Laparoscopic removal of an intra-abdominal intrauterine device: case and systematic review. Contraception 2012;85(1):15.
  11. Extrauterine mislocated IUD: Is surgical removal mandatory? Contraception 2002;66(2):105.
  12. Three-dimensional ultrasound detection of abnormally located intrauterine contraceptive devices which are a source of pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34(1): 110-15.
  13. Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26(10):1389-401.
  14. Online Version.
  15. Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging. Abdom Imaging 2011;36(6): 756-64.
  16. S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010 Committee Opinion. http://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Committee_Opinions/Committee_on_Gynecologic_Practice/Understanding_and_Using_the_US_Medical_Eligibility_Criteria_for_Contraceptive_Use_2010
  17. Müllerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 1991;56(6):1192.
  18. Am Fam Physician 2012 April;96(1):5-8.
  19. Intrauterine contraceptive devices and risk of pelvic inflammatory disease: Standard of care in high STI prevalence settings. Reprod Health Matters 2004;12(23): 136-43.
  20. Prescrire Int 2009;18(101):125-30.
  21. Infection risk and intrauterine devices. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88(3):246-50.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.