ArticleLancet (London, England)2022
Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study.
Article in Lancet (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immediate Versus Delayed Postpartum and Postabortion Insertion of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: An Umbrella Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
- The safety of intrauterine devices during breastfeeding: an updated systematic review.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Extended duration of use of long-acting reversible contraceptives: Systematic review.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2025Pooled it
- Immediate and delayed placement of the intrauterine device after abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices: a comprehensive pictorial review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Optimal Timing for Intrauterine Device Insertion During the Menstrual Cycle: A Comparative Study of Pain, Bleeding, and Postprocedural Outcomes.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- An Enigmatic Case of Rectal Bleeding in a Young Woman-A Forgotten Intrauterine Device, Perforation and Rectal Involvement: A Case Report and Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A case report of removal and uterine suturing of an incarcerated intrauterine sterilization ring.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Article
- Case Report: Abnormal uterine bleeding caused by displacement of an intrauterine device.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Combined Management of a Rare Case of an Incarcerated Intrauterine Device: Case Report and Review of the Literature.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
- Article
- Pain With Early Postpartum Intrauterine Device Placement.O&G open · 2025Article
- Delayed diagnosis of concurrent intrauterine and intraperitoneal intrauterine devices following assumed expulsion: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2025Article
- Case Report: Strangulated intestinal obstruction due to chronic migration of an intrauterine device (IUD): a 30-year latent complication.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Social Determinants of Health and Patient-Reported Difficult Discontinuation of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2024Article
- Safety profile of levonorgestrel intrauterine system: Analysis of spontaneous reports submitted to FAERS.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Characterisation and validation of lactation information from structured electronic health records for use in pharmacoepidemiological studies.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic management of bowel perforation secondary to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device migration: a case report and review of literature.Journal of surgical case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReports of perforation risk related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted immediately post partum and among non-post-partum individuals are scarce, and previous studies with only 12-month follow-ups underestimate the risk. Breastfeeding at IUD insertion and insertion within 36 weeks post partum have been associated with increased risk of uterine perforation. The aim of these analyses was to compare the incidence and risks of IUD-related uterine perforations by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion, and among post-partum individuals, to assess the impact of breastfeeding on these outcomes.
methodsWe did a multisite cohort study in the USA, using electronic health records (EHR). Study sites were three health-care systems and a site that used data from a health-care information exchange. The study population included individuals who were aged 50 years or younger and had an IUD insertion between Jan 1, 2001, and April 30, 2018. Individuals were excluded if they had not been in the health-care system for at least 12 months before IUD insertion. The primary outcome for this analysis was any IUD-related uterine perforation diagnosis for the first IUD insertion in this time period. Both complete and partial IUD-related perforations were identified. Chart abstraction was done to validate EHR-based algorithms or confirm perforations. The crude rate and cumulative incidence of uterine perforation were evaluated by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion in the full cohort, and by breastfeeding status in a subcohort of post-partum individuals. Cox models estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).
findingsData from 326 658 individuals in the full cohort and 94 817 individuals in the post-partum subcohort were analysed. In the full cohort, we identified 1008 uterine perforations (51·2% complete), with the 5-year cumulative incidence being the lowest in the non-post-partum group (0·29%, 95% CI 0·26-0·34). The aHR for the post-partum interval relative to non-post partum ranged from 2·73 (95% CI 1·33-5·63; 0 to 3 days post partum) to 6·71 (4·80-9·38; 4 days to ≤6 weeks post partum). The post-partum subcohort of individuals with breastfeeding information had 673 uterine perforations (62% complete), with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 1·37% (95% CI 1·24-1·52) and an increased risk with breastfeeding (aHR 1·37, 95% CI 1·12-1·66).
interpretationAlthough the risk for uterine perforation with IUD insertion 4 days to 6 weeks or less post partum is nearly seven times that of insertion non-post partum, perforation remains an incredibly rare event for all clinical time points. Despite a slight increased risk of perforation with breastfeeding at IUD insertion, the benefits of breastfeeding and effective contraception generally outweigh risks and should have little clinical impact. Therefore, IUD insertion timing should be based on individual desire for IUD contraception and patient convenience to assure an IUD insertion can occur. Careful follow-up of individuals at higher risk of uterine perforation is warranted.
fundingBayer AG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.