Elsevier

The Lancet

Volume 356, Issue 9234, 16 September 2000, Pages 1013-1019
The Lancet

Review
Intrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infection

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02699-4Get rights and content

Summary

Concern about upper-genital-tract infection related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) limits their wider use. In this systematic review I summarise the evidence concerning lUD-associated infection and infertility. Choice of an inappropriate comparison group, overdiagnosis of salpingitis in IUD users, and inability to control for the confounding effects of sexual behaviour have exaggerated the apparent risk. Women with symptomless gonorrhoea or chlamydial infection having an IUD inserted have a higher risk of salpingitis than do uninfected women having an IUD inserted; however, the risk appears similar to that of infected women not having an IUD inserted. A cohort study of HIV-positive women using a copper IUD suggests that there is no significant increase in the risk of complications or viral shedding. Similarly, fair evidence indicates no important effect of IUD use on tubal infertility. Contemporary IUDs rival tubal sterilisation in efficacy and are much safer than previously thought.

Section snippets

Background: biases in observational studies

Observational research has commonly found an increased risk of salpingitis or tubal infertility among IUD users. For example, the apparent increased risk of upper-genital-tract infection in some observational studies3, 4 suggested a causal association. However, this was because of the consistent presence of three types of bias: use of an inappropriate comparison group (women using contraceptives that lower the risk of PID), systematic overdiagnosis of salpingitis among IUD users, and inability

The IUD as a cause of PID

Foreign bodies in the skin dramatically reduce the bacterial inoculum required to cause infection. By analogy, some researchers have concluded that the presence of an IUD in the uterus lowers host resistance to infection.10 However, the uterus and the skin are very different organs.

If an IUD increases a woman's risk of upper-genital-tract infection and if her exposure to infection remains constant, then her risk of PID should remain raised throughout the duration of her IUD use. Evidence

The IUD tailstring and infection

The Dalkon Shield's multifilament tailstring could carry bacteria cephalad by capillary action.16 This has raised the possibility that monofilament tails might facilitate ascent of bacteria as well. Though numerous physical17 and bacteriological18 studies of monofilament tailstrings have been done, their relevance to the risk of infection is unknown. Clinical studies provide a better assessment of the potential risk of the tailstring.

Two types of evidence exist: the temporal relationship

Inserting an IUD in the presence of gonorrhoea or chlamydial infection

In settings where STDs are uncommon, upper-genital-tract infection associated with an IUD is rare. For example, in the large WHO report,7 4031 women in China had IUDs inserted but no case of PID occurred during 9197 woman-years of observation. By contrast, in Africa, where STDs are more prevalent, eight cases of PID occurred during 1292 woman-years of follow-up.

Carrying out an abortion in the presence of Neisseria gonorrhoeae or Chlamydia trachomatis increases the risk of postabortal

IUD use by women with HIV infection

Based on theoretical concerns, several international medical organisations38, 39 advise against IUD use by HIV-infected women. Two concerns predominate: a possible increased risk of PID because of immunosuppression; and a theoretical increase in the risk of female-to-male transmission of HIV via increased viral shedding or menstrual blood loss.

A cohort study in Nairobi, Kenya, suggests that IUDs may be safe in HIV-infected women who have access to care.32 Investigators followed 156 women with

Acquisition of gonorrhoea or chlamydial infection

Little is known about the potential for the IUD to influence the acquisition of cervical STD pathogens. A study from Sweden43 examined the risk of PID among women with cervical gonorrhoea. Even without controlling for potential confounding, the investigators found no significant increase in the risk of PID (confirmed by laparoscopy) among IUD users compared with women using neither an IUD nor oral contraceptives. However, in a cross-sectional study such as this, the timing of STD acquisition in

Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD and upper-genital-tract infection

Unlike oiher IUDs, ihe levonorgesirel-releasing inirauierine sysiem may lower ihe risk of pelvic inflammaiory disease, although daia are inconsisieni. A mullicenire randomised conirolled irial from Europe compared t he levonorgesirel IUD and ihe Nova T, a copper device. The cumulaiive 36-monih gross disconiinuaiion rales for PID were 0·5 and 2·0 per 100 women (p<0·02)49 and ihe 60-monih rales were 0·8 and 2·2 per 100 women, respeciively (p<0·01).50 Anoiher large randomised conirolled irial51

Treatment of upper-genital-tract infection in IUD users

Based on ihe foreign-body analogy, some have iheorised dial ihe presence of an IUD will impair ireaimeni of an upper-geniial-iraci infeciion. A laparoscopy sludy from Sweden52 found no significani difference in ihe degree of inflammation of ihe fallopian lubes among IUD users compared wilh women using neilher an IUD nor oral coniraceplion. The same held irue for eryihrocyie-sedimeniaiion rale and fever. Odiers have confirmed lhai ihe severily of PID is noi related lo use of an IUD.53

The limited

Infertility after IUD use

Many studies have examined fertility after IUD discontinuation. Numerous case-series reports55, 56, 57, 58, 59 have suggested a negligible effect of IUD use on fertility after discontinuation. However, without contemporaneous comparison groups, this evidence is weak.

Two large case-control studies60, 61 from the USA found an overall increase in the risk of confirmed tubal infertility of 2·0 to 2·6 fold after use of all types of IUDs, including Dalkon Shields. However, women who had used only a

Balancing risks and benefits

Unlike barrier contraceptives, IUDs do not protect women against STDs. Unlike combination oral contraceptives, most IUDs do not protect against PID that requires admission to hospital. Protection against infection, however, is not the purpose of contraception. The usual counselling for women at risk of acquiring an STD, independent of contraceptive choice, is to use condoms as needed. This is prudent advice for IUD users as well.

Modern IUDs, such as the copper T 380A and

References (88)

  • E Rees

    The treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease

    Am J Obstet Gynecol

    (1980)
  • CS Morrison et al.

    Use of sexually transmitted disease risk assessment algorithms for selection of intrauterine device candidates

    Contraception

    (1999)
  • G Ryden et al.

    Do contraceptives influence the incidence of acute pelvic inflammatory disease in women with gonorrhoea?

    Contraception

    (1979)
  • DA Edelman

    The use of intrauterine contraceptive devices, pelvic inflammatory disease, and Chlamydia trachomatis infection

    Am J Obstet Gynecol

    (1988)
  • MT Mehanna et al.

    Chlamydial serologic characteristics among intrauterine contraceptive device users: does copper inhibit chlamydial infection in the female genital tract?

    Am J Obstet Gynecol

    (1994)
  • K Andersson et al.

    Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova T) IUDs during five years of use: a randomized comparative trial

    Contraception

    (1994)
  • I Sivin et al.

    Prolonged intrauterine contraception: a seven-year randomized study of the levonorgestrel 20 meg/day (LNg 20) and the Copper T380 Ag IUDS

    Contraception

    (1991)
  • J Paavonen et al.

    Intrauterine contraceptive device use in patients with acute salpingitis

    Contraception

    (1980)
  • G Soderberg et al.

    Influence of an intrauterine device on the course of an acute salpingitis

    Contraception

    (1981)
  • L Andolsek et al.

    Time to contraception after IUD removal: importance of duration of use, IUD type, pelvic inflammatory disease and age

    Int J Gynaecol Obstet

    (1986)
  • L Randic et al.

    Return to fertility after IUD removal for planned pregnancy

    Contraception

    (1985)
  • T Pyorala et al.

    Return of fertility after the removal of Nova T or copper T 200

    Contraception

    (1982)
  • O Lalos

    Risk factors for tubal infertility among infertile and fertile women

    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol

    (1988)
  • JC Wilson

    A prospective New Zealand study of fertility after removal of copper intrauterine devices for conception and because of complications: a four-year study

    Am J Obstet Gynecol

    (1989)
  • S Diaz et al.

    Recovery of fertility and outcome of planned pregnancies after the removal of Norplant subdermal implants or Copper-T IUDs

    Contraception

    (1987)
  • H Belhadj et al.

    Recovery of fertility after use of the levonorgestrel 20 mcg/d or Copper T 380 Ag intrauterine device

    Contraception

    (1986)
  • KA Rosenblatt et al.

    Intrauterine devices and endometrial cancer: the WHO Collaborative Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraceptives

    Contraception

    (1996)
  • DA Grimes et al.

    Prophylactic antibiotics for intrauterine device insertion: a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled trials

    Contraception

    (1999)
  • DA Grimes

    The intrauterine device, pelvic inflammatory disease, and infertility: the confusion between hypothesis and knowledge

    Fertil Steril

    (1992)
  • Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices: technical report series 753

    (1987)
  • Guide to clinical preventive services

    (1995)
  • SN Shrikhande et al.

    Risk factors and protective factors of pelvic inflammatory disease: a case-control study

    Indian J Pub Health

    (1998)
  • MP Vessey et al.

    Pelvic inflammatory disease and the intrauterine device: findings in a large cohort study

    BMJ

    (1981)
  • H Buchan et al.

    Epidemiology of pelvic inflammatory disease in parous women with special reference to intrauterine device use

    Br J Obstet Gynaecol

    (1990)
  • SK Sinei et al.

    Preventing lUCD-related pelvic infection: the efficacy of prophylactic doxycycline at insertion

    Br J Obstet Gynaecol

    (1990)
  • C Tietze

    Evaluation of intrauterine devices: ninth progress report of the Cooperative Statistical Program

    Stud Fam Plann

    (1970)
  • NC Lee et al.

    Type of intrauterine device and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease

    Obstet Gynecol

    (1983)
  • NC Lee et al.

    The intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease revisited: new results from the Women's Health Study

    Obstet Gynecol

    (1988)
  • TMM Farley et al.

    Luds and pelvic inflammatory disease

    Lancet

    (1992)
  • HJ Tatum et al.

    The Dalkon Shield controversy: structural and bacteriological studies of IUD tails

    JAMA

    (1975)
  • D Roylance

    Assessment of olefin-based IUD tail strings

    J Appl Biomater

    (1993)
  • BG Furrier et al.

    In vitro study of the possible role of the intrauterine contraceptive device tail in ascending infection in the genital tract

    Br J Obstet Gynaecol

    (1979)
  • DM Potts et al.

    IUDs and PID: a comparative trial of strings versus stringless devices

    Adv Contracept

    (1991)
  • M Pap-Akeson et al.

    Genital tract infections associated with the intrauterine contraceptive device can be reduced by inserting the threads into the uterine cavity

    Br J Obstet Gynaecol

    (1992)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text