The outcome of replacing an intrauterine contraceptive device at the time of large loop excision of the transformation zone

SummarySummaryThe outcome of replacing an intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) in 46 women at the time of large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CLN) was compared with 47 matched controls who had an IUCD removed but not replaced at the time of LLETZ.Twenty-five per cent of the women who had an IUCD replaced were treated for suspected or confirmed pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) by 6 months following treatment, compared with only one woman in the control group. Replacing an IUCD at the time of LLETZ significantly increases morbidity after the procedure and we recommend delaying insertion of an IUCD until at least 6 weeks after treatment.

[1]  J. Newton IUD safety and acceptability: recent advances , 1993 .

[2]  G. Vooijs,et al.  Diathermy loop excision in the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: diagnosis and treatment in one procedure. , 1992, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  T. Farley,et al.  Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective , 1992, The Lancet.

[4]  D. M. Potts,et al.  IUDs and PID: a comparative trial of strings versus stringless devices , 1991, Advances in contraception : the official journal of the Society for the Advancement of Contraception.

[5]  A. Singer,et al.  Patients' acceptance of diathermy loop treatment , 1990, The Lancet.

[6]  C. Redman,et al.  Loop diathermy excision of the cervical transformation zone in patients with abnormal cervical smears. , 1990, BMJ.

[7]  W. Prendiville,et al.  Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ). A new method of management for women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 1989, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[8]  N. Lee,et al.  The Intrauterine Device and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Revisited: New Results From the Women's Health Study , 1988, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  H. Ory,et al.  Type of Intrauterine Device and the Risk of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease , 1983, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  L Weström,et al.  Incidence, prevalence, and trends of acute pelvic inflammatory disease and its consequences in industrialized countries. , 1980, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  V. Davajan,et al.  Quantitative immunologic assay of human chorionic gonadotropin in normal and abnormal pregnancies. , 1966, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  R. Good,et al.  The intrauterine device: a bacteriologic study of the endometrial cavity. , 1966, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.