Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:44:10.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intrauterine devices: learning from the past and looking to the future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Carlos Alberto Petta ,
Melissa McPheeters  and
I-Cheng Chi
Carlos Alberto Petta
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, State University of Campinas and Center for Research on Maternal and Child Disease, Campinas, Brazil
Melissa McPheeters
Affiliation:
Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
I-Cheng Chi
Affiliation:
Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper reviews the historical development of the IUD, describing the challenges and successes, and attempts to offer a balanced perspective for family planning service workers today. Modern IUDs are an important component of family planning services and an excellent contraceptive choice for properly screened women, providing contraception that is safe, effective, long lasting and cost effective. Potential research strategies for the future are also discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 241 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alza, Pharmaceutical (1976) The Progestasert: Intrauterine Progesterone Contraceptive System: Release Rated 65 ug/Day Progesterone for one Year: A New Contraceptive. Alza Corporation, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
Boateng, J., Chi, I-c. & Jones, D. B. (1994) An evaluation of six new intrauterine devices. Adv. Contracept. 10, 57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burkman, R. T. (1981) Women's Health Study. Association between intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet. Gynec. 57, 269.Google ScholarPubMed
Cates, W., Ory, H. W., Rochat, R. W. & Tyler, C. W. (1976) The intrauterine device and deaths from spontaneous abortion. New Eng. J. Med. 295, 1155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chi, I-c. (1991) An evaluation of the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD; its advantages and disadvantages when compared to the copper-releasing IUDs. Contraception, 44, 573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, I-c. (1993 a) The TCu-380A(Ag), MlCu375, and Nova-T IUDs and the IUD daily releasing 20 ug levonorgestrel—four pillars of IUD contraception for the nineties and beyond? Contraception, 47, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, I-c. (1993 b) What we have learned from recent IUD studies: a researcher's perspective. Contraception, 48, 81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chi, I-c., Potts, M. & Waszak, C. (1986) The IUD still has an important place in family planning. IPPF Med. Bull. 20, 2.Google Scholar
Davis, H. J. (1971) Intrauterine Devices for Contraception. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Farley, T. M. M., Rowe, P. J., Rosenberg, J. R., Chen, J-H. & Meirik, O. (1992) Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective. Lancet, 339, 785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farr, G. (1993) The IUD: will its future always be crippled by its past? Fam. Plan. World, 3, 5, 26.Google ScholarPubMed
Faúndes, A. (1994) Factors limiting IUD use in Latin America. In: Proceedings from the Fourth International Conference on IUDs, p. 116. Edited by Bardin, C. W. & Mishell, D. R.. Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, Maryland.Google Scholar
Forrest, J. D. (1989) Estimating the number of potential candidates for IUD use. Obstet. Gynec. 11, 43, 103.Google Scholar
Fortier, L., Lefebvre, Y., Larose, M. & Lanctot, R. (1973) Canadian experience with a copper-covered intrauterine contraceptive device. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 115, 291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franks, A. L., Beral, V., Cates, W. Jr & Hogue, C. R. (1990) Contraception and ectopic pregnancy risk. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 63, 1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gräfenberg, E. (1929 a) Die Intrauterine Methode der Konzeptionsverhütung. Third Congress of the World League of Sexual Reform, p. 116.Google Scholar
Gräferberg, E. (1929 b) Silk als antikonzipeins. Geburtenregelung-Vorträge und Verhandlungen des Artztekursus vom 28–30 Dezember 1928. Edited by Bendix, K.. Selbstverlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Gräfenberg, E. (1930) An intrauterine contraceptive method. Seventh International Birth Control Conference, p. 33.Google Scholar
Grimes, D. A. (1987) Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: recent developments. Contraception, 36, 97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishihama, A. (1959) Clinical studies in intrauterine contraceptives, specially the present state of contraception in Japan and the experience in the use of intrauterine rings. Yokohama Med. J. 10, 89.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N. M. (1962) The Gräfenberg silver ring in a series of patients who had failed with other methods. In: Intra-uterine Contraceptive Devices—Proceedings of the Conference, pp. 37–40. Edited by Tietze, C. & Lewit, S.. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jain, A. K. (1994) Factors limiting IUD use in South Asia. In: Proceedings from the Fourth International Conference on IUDs, p. 111. Edited by Bardin, C. W. & Mishell, D. R.. Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Jennings, J. (1974) Report on Safety and Efficacy of the Dalkon Shield and Other IUDs, p. 16. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Kahn, H. S. & Tyler, C. W. (1976) An association between the Dalkon Shield and complicated pregnancies among women hospitalized for intrauterine contraceptive device-related disorders. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 125, 83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kessel, E. (1989) Pelvic inflammatory disease with intrauterine device use: a reassessment. Fert. Steril. 51, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, N. C., Rubin, G. L., Ory, H. W. & Burkman, R. T. (1983) Type of intrauterine device and the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet. Gynec. 62, 1.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, N. C., Rubin, G. L. & Borucki, R. (1988) The intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease revisited: new results from the Women's Health Study. Obstet. Gynec. 72, 1.Google ScholarPubMed
Lippes, J. (1962) A study of intrauterine contraception: a development of a plastic loop. Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices, Proceedings of the Conference. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lippes, J. (1989) The making of the first loop. In: State of the Art of the IUD, Liber Amicorum Professor M. Thiery on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, p. 12. Edited by Pas, H. van der & Dieben, T. H.Kluwer, Hingham, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Lippes, J., Ziellezny, M., Ferro, P. A. & Sultz, H. (1973 a) The effect of increasing copper on loop A and comparisons with the copper T-200 and loop D- plain. Proceedings of the 11th annual meeting of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians, p. 12.Google Scholar
Lippes, J., Ziellezny, M. & Sultz, H. (1973 b) The effect of copper on loop. A.J. Reprod. Med. 10, 166.Google Scholar
Luukkainen, T. (1993) The levonorgestrel-releasing IUD. Br. J. Fam. Plann. 19, 221.Google Scholar
Luukkainen, T., Nielsen, N. C., Nygren, K. G., Pyorala, T. & Allonen, H. (1979) Combined and national experience of postmenstrual IUD insertion of Nova-T and Copper-T in a randomized study. Contraception, 19, 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Margulies, L. C. (1962) Permanent reversible contraception with an intrauterine plastic spiral. Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices, Proceedings of the Conference.Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mauldin, W. P. & Segal, S. J. (1994) IUD use throughout the world: past, present and future. In: Proceedings from the Fourth International Conference on IUDs, p. 116. Edited by Bardin, C. W. & Mishell, D. R.Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Medel, M., Martinez, C., Morehead, J. E., Osorio, A., Pastene, L., Rivera, M. & Zipper, J. (1978) Comparative IUD study: Lippes Loop D, Dalkon Shield and TCu-220. Int. J. Gynec. Obstet. 16, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishell, D. R., Jain, A. K., Kahn, H. S., Snowden, R. & Tatum, H. J. (1974) Putting IUDs in perspective. Contemporary Ob/Gyn. 4, 123.Google Scholar
Mumford, S. D. & Kessel, E. (1992) Was the Dalkon Shield a safe and effective intrauterine device? The conflict between case-control and clinical trial study findings. Fert. Steril. 57, 1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, J., Elias, J. & McEwan, J. (1972) Intrauterine contraception using the copper-seven device. Lancet, 2, 951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oppenheimer, W. (1959) Prevention of pregnancy by the Gräfenberg ring method: a re-evaluation after 28 years of experience. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 78, 446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ota, T. A. (1934) Study on birth control with an intrauterine instrument. Jap. J. Obstet. Gynec. 17, 210.Google Scholar
Petitti, D. B. (1992) Reconsidering the IUD. Fam. Plann. Perspect. 24, 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitkin, R. M. (1988) The return of the IUD. Obstet. Gynec. 72, 119.Google ScholarPubMed
Population Reports (1973) Intrauterine Devices. Series B, 1. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Population Reports (1975) Intrauterine Devices. Series B, 2. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Richter, R. (1909) Ein mittel zur verhütung der konzeption. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, 35, 1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, S., Casagrande, J., Cooper, D. L. & Mishell, D. R. (1979) Comparison of three different models of the Copper T intrauterine contraceptive device. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 134, 568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scommegna, A., Pandya, G. N., Christ, M., Lee, A. W. & Cohen, M. R. (1970) Intrauterine administration of progesterone by a slow release device. Fert. Steril. 21, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaaban, M. M. (1994) Factors limiting IUD use in North Africa. In: Proceedings from the Fourth International Conference on IUDs, p. 127. Edited by Bardin, C. W. & Mishell, D. R.. Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Sivin, I. (1976) A comparison of the Copper T-200 and the Lippes Loop in four countries. Stud. Fam. Plann. 7, 115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sivin, I. (1991) Dose-and age-dependent ectopic pregnancy risks of intrauterine contraception. Obstet. Gynec. 78, 291.Google ScholarPubMed
Sivin, I. (1993) Another look at the Dalkon Shield: meta-analysis underscores its problems. Contraception, 48, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sivin, I., Greenslade, F., Schmidt, F. & Waldman, S. (1992) The Copper T 380 Intrauterine Device. A Summary of Scientific Data. Population Council, New York.Google Scholar
Sivin, I. & Stern, J. (1979) Long-acting, more effective Copper T IUDs: a summary of U.S. experience, 1970–75. Stud. Fam. Plann. 10, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sivin, I. & Stern, J. (1994) Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20 ug/d and the Copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: a multicenter study. Fert. Steril. 61, 70.Google Scholar
Soderstrom, R. M. (1994) Progestasert intrauterine progesterone contraceptive system. In: Proceedings from the Fourth International Conference on IUDs, p. 319. Edited by Bardin, C. W. & Mishell, D. R.. Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Southam, A. (1964) Historical review of intrauterine devices. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Intrauterine Devices.Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Suitters, B. (1967) The History of Contraceptives. International Planned Parenthood Federation, London.Google Scholar
Tatum, H. J. (1972 a) Contraception with the endouterine copper T: a preliminary report. In: Advances in Planned Parenthood, Vol. 7, p. 92. Edited by Sobrero, A. J. & Harvey, R. M.. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Tatum, H. J. (1972 b) The first year of clinical experience with the copper T intrauterine contraceptive system in the United States and Canada. Contraception, 6, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatum, H. J., Schmidt, F. H. & Phillips, D. M. (1975 a) Morphological studies of Dalkon Shield removed from patients. Contraception, 11, 465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tatum, H. J., Schmidt, F. H., Phillips, D., McCarty, M. & O'Leary, W. (1975 b) The Dalkon Shield controversy: structural and bacteriological studies of IUD tails. J. Am. med. Ass. 231, 711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tatum, H. J., Schmidt, F. H., Phillips, D., McCarty, M. & O'Leary, W. (1975 c) Microbial migration in the thread attached to an IUD as possible factor in infectious complications. In: Analysis of Intrauterine Contraception. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Intrauterine Contraception, p. 411. Edited by Hefnawi, F. & Segal, S. J.. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Thomsen, R. J. (1980) Historical: Ernest Gräfenberg and the golden year of the silver ring. In: Medicated Intrauterine Devices. Edited by Hafez, E. S. E. & Os, W. A. A. van. Martinus Nijhoff, Hingham, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Tietze, C. (1962) Intra-uterine contraceptive rings: history and statistical appraisal. Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices, Proceedings of the Conference. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Tietze, C. (1967) Intra-uterine contraception: recommended procedures for data analysis. Stud. Fam. Plann. 18 (Suppl),Google Scholar
Tietze, C. & Lewit, S. (1970) Evaluation of Intrauterine Devices: Ninth Progress Report of the Cooperative Statistical Program. Stud. Fam. Plann. 51, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tietze, C. & Lewit, S. (1972) Comparison of the copper-T and loop IUD: a research report. Stud. Fam. Plann. 3, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Os, W. A. A. & Edelman, D. A. (1988) Fifteen years' experience with the Multiload IUD. Adv. Contracept. 4, 165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wildemeersch, D., Van Kets, H., Van Der Pas, H., Vrijens, M., Trappen, Y. V., Temmerman, M., Batar, I., Barri, P., Martinez, F., Iglesia-Cortit, L., Thiery, M. (1994) IUD tolerance in nulligravid and parous women: optimal acceptance with the frameless CuFix implant system (GyneFix™). Long-term results with a new inserter. Br. J. Fam. Plann. 20, 1.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1980) Special programme of research, development and research training in human reproduction. Ninth Annual Report, p. 162. WHO, Geneva.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1987) Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. WHO Tech. Rep. Ser. 753, 92.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1990) The TCu-380A, TCu-220C, Multiload 250 and Nova-T IUDs at 3, 5 and 7 years of use—results from three randomized multicenter trials. Contraception, 42, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipper, J., Medel, M. & Prager, R. (1969 a) Suppression of fertility by intrauterine copper and zinc in rabbits: a new approach to intrauterine contraception. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 105, 529.Google Scholar
Zipper, J., Tatum, H. J., Pastene, L., Medel, M. & Rivera, M. (1969 b) Metallic Cu as an intrauterine contraceptive adjunct to the “T” device. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 105, 1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipper, J., Tatum, H. J., Medel, M., Pastene, L. & Rivera, M. (1971) Contraception through the use of intrauterine metals. Copper as an adjunct to the “T” device. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 109, 771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar