This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Gordon F. Schwartz, MD; Alfred M. Markowitz, MD

JAMA. 1970;211(6):959-960.

Abstract
Although the intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) has been widely accepted as a safe, convenient means of preventing conception, the use of these devices in their various forms has been attended by complications related both to the type of device and to its insertion. Although most of these complications have been minor, reports of uterine perforations secondary to the use of IUD have been noted. The Surgical Service of the Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center has encountered three patients with peritonitis or intestinal obstruction or both resulting from displaced IUDs. These seriously ill patients form the basis of this report and experiences with them lead to the conclusion that the discovery of an intraperitoneal IUD, despite the absence of symptoms, is sufficient reason for its elective removal.

Author Affiliations
From the Surgical Service, Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, and the Department of Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York. Dr. Schwartz is now with University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to 19th and Lombard streets, Philadelphia 19146 (Dr. Schwartz).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?