A COMPARISON OF INTRACAESARIAN VERSUS INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE

Objective: To compare intracaesarian placement of intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) with interval placement at 6 weeks in terms of device expulsion and continued use at 6 months postpartum. Study design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Combine...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Uzma Gul, Sunarays Akhtar
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Army Medical College Rawalpindi 2020
Materias:	contraception intrauterine devices postpartum period Medicine R Medicine (General) R5-920
Acceso en línea:	https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v70i6.3598 https://doaj.org/article/584d2e068df04de08464b2568b783af6
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:584d2e068df04de08464b2568b783af6
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:584d2e068df04de08464b2568b783af62021-12-02T19:18:23ZA COMPARISON OF INTRACAESARIAN VERSUS INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICEhttps://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v70i6.35980030-96482411-8842https://doaj.org/article/584d2e068df04de08464b2568b783af62020-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://pafmj.org/index.php/PAFMJ/article/view/3598https://doaj.org/toc/0030-9648https://doaj.org/toc/2411-8842Objective: To compare intracaesarian placement of intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) with interval placement at 6 weeks in terms of device expulsion and continued use at 6 months postpartum. Study design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Combined Military Hospital Jhelum, Oct 2017 to Oct 2018. Materials and methods: 104 pregnant women aged 20 to 40 years old, planned for an elective caesarian delivery and who opted for an IUCD were included. They were randomly divided into two equal groups using lottery method. Women were told about their assigned timing of IUCD placement well before their surgery. Group A had IUCD placed during caesarian section while group B (serving as controls) had insertion after 6 weeks. Cu-T 380 A was provided free of charge to all participants. Women were seen after 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Both groups were analyzed and compared in terms of IUCD expulsion and continued use at 6 months postpartum. Results: The device was placed in 48 women in group A and 35 women in group B (p 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in device expulsion rates between the two groups (p 0.37). After 6 months significantly higher proportion of women in the intracaesarian group were continuing to use the IUCD as compared to the interval group (p˂0.05) Conclusion: Intra-caesarian placement of IUCD leads to statistically significant higher continuation rates as compared to conventional interval placement with no statistically significant difference in expulsion rates.Uzma GulSunarays AkhtarArmy Medical College Rawalpindiarticlecontraceptionintrauterine devicespostpartum periodMedicineRMedicine (General)R5-920ENPakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal, Vol 70, Iss 6, Pp 1776-1781 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	contraception intrauterine devices postpartum period Medicine R Medicine (General) R5-920
spellingShingle	contraception intrauterine devices postpartum period Medicine R Medicine (General) R5-920 Uzma Gul Sunarays Akhtar A COMPARISON OF INTRACAESARIAN VERSUS INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE
description	Objective: To compare intracaesarian placement of intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) with interval placement at 6 weeks in terms of device expulsion and continued use at 6 months postpartum. Study design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Combined Military Hospital Jhelum, Oct 2017 to Oct 2018. Materials and methods: 104 pregnant women aged 20 to 40 years old, planned for an elective caesarian delivery and who opted for an IUCD were included. They were randomly divided into two equal groups using lottery method. Women were told about their assigned timing of IUCD placement well before their surgery. Group A had IUCD placed during caesarian section while group B (serving as controls) had insertion after 6 weeks. Cu-T 380 A was provided free of charge to all participants. Women were seen after 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Both groups were analyzed and compared in terms of IUCD expulsion and continued use at 6 months postpartum. Results: The device was placed in 48 women in group A and 35 women in group B (p 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in device expulsion rates between the two groups (p 0.37). After 6 months significantly higher proportion of women in the intracaesarian group were continuing to use the IUCD as compared to the interval group (p˂0.05) Conclusion: Intra-caesarian placement of IUCD leads to statistically significant higher continuation rates as compared to conventional interval placement with no statistically significant difference in expulsion rates.
format	article
author	Uzma Gul Sunarays Akhtar
author_facet	Uzma Gul Sunarays Akhtar
author_sort	Uzma Gul
title	A COMPARISON OF INTRACAESARIAN VERSUS INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE
title_short	A COMPARISON OF INTRACAESARIAN VERSUS INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE
title_full	A COMPARISON OF INTRACAESARIAN VERSUS INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE
title_fullStr	A COMPARISON OF INTRACAESARIAN VERSUS INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE
title_full_unstemmed	A COMPARISON OF INTRACAESARIAN VERSUS INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE
title_sort	comparison of intracaesarian versus interval placement of intrauterine contraceptive device
publisher	Army Medical College Rawalpindi
publishDate	2020
url	https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v70i6.3598 https://doaj.org/article/584d2e068df04de08464b2568b783af6
work_keys_str_mv	AT uzmagul acomparisonofintracaesarianversusintervalplacementofintrauterinecontraceptivedevice AT sunaraysakhtar acomparisonofintracaesarianversusintervalplacementofintrauterinecontraceptivedevice AT uzmagul comparisonofintracaesarianversusintervalplacementofintrauterinecontraceptivedevice AT sunaraysakhtar comparisonofintracaesarianversusintervalplacementofintrauterinecontraceptivedevice
_version_	1718376852051984384

A COMPARISON OF INTRACAESARIAN VERSUS INTERVAL PLACEMENT OF INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE

Ejemplares similares