Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Role of Three-dimensional Pelvic Ultrasound in the Assessment of Risk Factors for Intrauterine Device Misplacement and Dislocation

Sushila Arya, Zuber D Mulla, Tracy N Nguyen, Sanja Plavsic Kupesic

Keywords : Intrauterine device displacement, Quality improvement, Risk factors for intrauterine device displacement, Three-dimensional ultrasound, Uterine cavity diameter

Citation Information : Arya S, Mulla ZD, Nguyen TN, Kupesic SP. Role of Three-dimensional Pelvic Ultrasound in the Assessment of Risk Factors for Intrauterine Device Misplacement and Dislocation. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 13 (3):103-109.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1598

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Objectives: Our objectives were to improve the quality and safety of future intrauterine device (IUD) insertion by introducing a systematic approach to identifying patients at risk for IUD misplacement and dislocation using the 3D ultrasound. Design: Risk factors for IUD misplacement and dislocation were assessed in a case-control study of patients who presented to our ultrasound clinic for IUD localization: 49 cases (women with IUD misplacement and/or dislocation) were compared to 108 controls (women with IUDs in the normal position). Adjusted odds ratios (AOR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p values were calculated from logistic regression models using Firth's penalized maximum likelihood estimation to reduce bias. Results: The most common type of IUD complication was caudal dislocation in the lower uterine segment (LUS) and/or cervix, with or without an embedment, occurring in 41 patients (83.67%). The presence of submucosal and/or intracavitary uterine fibroids (vs other fibroid location or no fibroids) was positively associated with IUD misplacement and dislocation: AOR = 19.24, 95% CI: 1.42–260.23, p = 0.03. The presence of sonographic features of adenomyosis was positively associated with IUD dislocation, AOR = 7.40, 95% CI: 2.71–20.24, p < 0.0001. Both narrow (<30 mm) and wide (>32 mm) uterine cavity transverse diameters of the fundus assessed in the coronal plane increased the odds of a displaced IUD (vs a diameter of 30–32 mm): narrow diameter AOR = 4.95 (95% CI: 1.41–17.36, p = 0.013), and wide diameter AOR = 5.44 (95% CI: 1.39–21.22, p = 0.015). The AOR for IUD dislocation for a uterine cavity length of <30 mm (vs 30 mm or greater) was 3.60, 95% CI: 1.40–9.21, p = 0.008. Copper-containing IUDs (TCu380A/ParaGard®) were displaced more frequently than other types of IUDs: AOR = 2.82, 95% CI: 1.04–7.65, p = 0.04. Conclusion: Our data confirm that 3D ultrasound is the method of choice for IUD localization and can be used for the objective selection of candidates for intrauterine contraception.

  1. Goldstuck ND, Wildemeersch D. Role of uterine forces in intrauterine device embedment, perforation, and expulsion. Int J Womens Health 2014;6(1):735–744. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S63167.
  2. Hubacher D. Copper intrauterine device use by nulliparous women: review of side effects. Contraception 2006;75(6 Suppl):S8–S11.
  3. Shipp TD, Bromley B, et al. The width of the uterine cavity is narrower in patients with an embedded Intrauterine Device (IUD) compared to a normally positioned IUD. J Ultrasound Med 2010;29(10):1453–1456. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2010.29.10.1453.
  4. Teal SB, Sheeder J. IUD use in adolescent mothers: Retention, failure and reasons for discontinuation. Contraception 2012;85(3):270–274. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.07.001.
  5. Thonneau P, Goulard H, et al. Risk factors for intrauterine device failure: A review. Contraception 2001;64:33–37. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-7824(01)00215-3.
  6. Garbers S, Haines-Stephan J, et al. Continuation of copper-containing intrauterine devices at 6 months. Contraception 2013;87(1):101–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.09.013.
  7. Berenson AB, Tan A, et al. Complications and continuation of intrauterine device use among commercially insured teenagers. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121(5):951–958. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31828b63a0.
  8. Aoun J, Dines VA, et al. Effects of age, parity, and device type on complications and discontinuation of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123(3):585–592. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000144.
  9. Diedrich JT, Madden T, et al. Long-term utilization and continuation of intrauterine devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;213(6):822. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.077.
  10. Sivin I, Stern J. Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20 micrograms/d and the copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: a multicenter study. International Committee for Contraception Research (ICCR). Fertil Steril 1994;61(1):70–77. DOI: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)56455-3.
  11. Moschos E, Twickler DM. Does the type of intrauterine device affect conspicuity on 2D and 3D ultrasound? Am J Roentgenol 2011;196(6):1439–1443. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5483.
  12. Wildemeersch D, Pett A, et al. Precision intrauterine contraception may significantly increase continuation of use: a review of long-term clinical experience with frameless copper-releasing intrauterine contraception devices. Int J Womens Health 2013;5(1):215–225. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S42784.
  13. Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, et al. Width of the normal uterine cavity in premenopausal women and effect of parity. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116(2):305–310. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e6cc10.
  14. Arya S, Kupesic Plavsic S. Sonographic Features of Adenomyosis. Donald Sch J Ultrasound Obs Gynecol 2017;11(1):1–6. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1498.
  15. Allison PD. Logistic Regression Using the SAS® System: Theory and Application. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute, Inc.; 1999. pp. 48–51.
  16. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2000. pp. 63, 162.
  17. Balise RR. Logit plot macro (for SAS). [cited 2018 Mar 23]; available from:
  18. Fernandez N, Mulla Z. Avoiding sparse data bias: an example from gynecologic oncology. J Regist Manag 2012;39(4):167–171.
  19. Harrell FE. Regression Modeling Strategies. With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. New York: Springer; 2001. p. 64.
  20. Cole SR, Chu H, et al. Maximum likelihood, profile likelihood, and penalized likelihood: A primer. Am J Epidemiol 2014;179(2):252–260. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt245.
  21. Andrade CMA, Araujo Júnior E, et al. Three-dimensional vs two-dimensional ultrasound for assessing levonorgestrel intrauterine device location: A pilot study. J Clin Ultrasound 2016;44(2):72–77. DOI: 10.1002/jcu.22276.
  22. Zohav E, Anteby EY, et al. Use of three-dimensional ultrasound in evaluating the intrauterine position of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14(4):495–497. DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60898-X.
  23. Kalmantis K, Daskalakis G, et al. The role of three-dimensional imaging in the investigation of IUD malposition. Bratislava Med J 2009;110(3):174–177.
  24. Menakaya U, Reid S, et al. Systematic Evaluation of Women With Suspected Endometriosis Using a 5-Domain Sonographically Based Approach. Journal Ultrasound Medicine 2015;34(6):937–947. DOI: 10.7863/ultra.34.6.937.
  25. Sanders RC, Parsons AK. Anteverted retroflexed uterus: a common consequence of cesarean delivery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014 Jul;203(1):W117–W124. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.10403.
  26. Moshesh M, Saldana T, et al. Factors associated with low-lying intrauterine devices: a cross-sectional ultrasound study in a cohort of 27. African-American women. Contraception 2018 Jul;98(1):25–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.02.018.
  27. Liang H, Li L, et al. Dimensions of the endometrial cavity and intrauterine device expulsion or removal for displacement: A nested case-control study. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;121(8): 997–1004. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12619.
  28. Bahamondes MV, Monteiro I, et al. Length of the endometrial cavity and intrauterine contraceptive device expulsion. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2011;113(1):50–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.10.013.
  29. Zapata LB, Whiteman MK, et al. Intrauterine device use among women with uterine fibroids: a systematic review. Contraception 2010;82(1):41–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.011.
  30. Mehasseb K, Bell SC, et al. Uterine adenomyosis is associated with ultrastructural features of altered contractility in the inner myometrium. Fertil Steril 2010;93(7):2130–2136. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.097.
  31. Kleinbaum D, Kupper L, et al. Epidemiologic Research: Principles and Quantitative Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1982. p. 214.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.