Use of intrauterine contraceptive devices in nulliparous women: personal experience over a 12-year period.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the use of intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) in nulliparous women compared to their use in parous women.


METHODS
A comparative cross-sectional study was carried out to determine the reasons for removal of IUDs inserted between 1985 and 1996 in a sample of 227 nulliparous women and 2080 parous women. The statistical analysis was performed using the chi 2 test; the differences were considered to be significant when p < 0.05.


RESULTS
The reasons for removal of IUDs in the two groups were: expiry, 49.1% in the nulliparous group vs. 48.2% in the parous group; planned pregnancy, 21.7% vs. 15.4%; accidental pregnancy, 4.8% vs. 6.3%; expulsion, 1.6% vs. 5.1%; pelvic inflammatory disease, 1.6% vs. 1.1%; pain and/or bleeding, 14.5% vs. 10.2%; other, 6.4% vs. 6.3%; vasectomy or tubal sterilization, 0% vs. 7%.


CONCLUSIONS
Our data suggest that nulliparity is not a contraindication for the use of an IUD, and that the use of an IUD in nulliparous women is as safe and effective as in parous women.
Lete
I
I
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Txagorritxu, Vitoria, Spain.
Morales
P
P
de Pablo
J L
JL
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000075202:Contraindications; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007434:Intrauterine Devices / Q000009:adverse effects; D008875:Middle Aged; D010146:Pain / Q000209:etiology; D010298:Parity; D000292:Pelvic Inflammatory Disease / Q000209:etiology; D011247:Pregnancy / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D013997:Time Factors; D014592:Uterine Hemorrhage / Q000209:etiology