Bladder Migration of an Intrauterine Device: Management Through Minimally Invasive Surgery

Migración vesical de dispositivo intrauterino: resolución por cirugía mínimamente invasiva

Authors

  • Katty Magdalena Barahona-Ochoa Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.
  • Tania Elizabeth Chacón-Muñoz Universidad Católica de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.
  • Rodrigo Xavier Morales-Villacis Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.
  • Erika Paola Delgado-Astudillo Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.
  • Jessenia Elizabeth Martinez-Soto Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.
  • Priscila Jazmine Sarango-Lapo Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22258/hgh.v10i2.430

Abstract

Uterine perforation associated with an intrauterine device (IUD) is a rare complication that can cause extrauterine migration and compromise adjacent organs, such as the urinary bladder. We present the case of a 40-year-old patient with a history of two cesarean sections, who had a copper IUD inserted 1 year and 7 months prior. Ten months after insertion, she experienced a pregnancy that resulted in a missed miscarriage, with the device no longer present in the uterine cavity. Imaging studies allowed the IUD to be located in the pelvic cavity, in close proximity to the bladder. The patient reported mild pelvic pain, so a diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy was performed. The device was identified in the vesicouterine space, adhered to the bladder fundus. Cold dissection was performed, achieving complete removal of the device. The postoperative course was favorable. Uterine perforation can occur immediately during insertion or later due to progressive erosion. Factors such as the postpartum period, breastfeeding, insertion technique, and operator experience influence its occurrence. Although bladder perforation is infrequent, it is clinically relevant due to the potential associated complications. Laparoscopy is the preferred approach for its management. Early suspicion and the use of imaging techniques are essential when sutures are absent or when there is a pregnancy with an IUD, allowing for safe and effective resolution even in atypical locations. Keywords: Uterine Perforation; Laparoscopy; Urinary Bladder; Intrauterine Devices (Source: MeSH, NLM).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Katty Magdalena Barahona-Ochoa, Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Médico, Posgradista de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Tania Elizabeth Chacón-Muñoz, Universidad Católica de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Médico, Posgradista de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Universidad Católica de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Rodrigo Xavier Morales-Villacis, Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Médico, Especialista en Ginecología y Obstetricia. Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Erika Paola Delgado-Astudillo, Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Médico, Posgradista de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Jessenia Elizabeth Martinez-Soto, Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Médico, Posgradista de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Priscila Jazmine Sarango-Lapo, Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

Médico, Posgradista de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Universidad de Cuenca. Cuenca, Ecuador.

References

Lanzola EL, Auber M, Ketvertis K. Intrauterine device placement and removal. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025.

Sun X, Xue M, Deng X, et al. Clinical characteristics and intraoperative findings of uterine perforation in patients using intrauterine devices (IUDs). Gynecol Surg. 2018;15(1):3. DOI:10.1186/s10397-017-1032-2.

Pareja HBJ, Canedo EA, Cajango DP, et al. Colecistite com fístula estômago e intestino: um relato de caso. Int Seven J Health Res. 2024;3:1091–1093. DOI:10.56238/isevjhv3n4-012.

Cheung ML, Rezai S, Jackman JM, et al. Retained intrauterine device (IUD): triple case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2018;2018:9362962. DOI:10.1155/2018/9362962.

Seto E, Liu EN, Pereira N. Perforated intrauterine device in the abdomen: leave or retrieve? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2025;32:103–104. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.07.025.

Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, et al. Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices. Contraception. 2015;91(4):274–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.007.

Reed SD, Zhou X, Ichikawa L, et al. Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study. Lancet. 2022;399(10341):2103–2112. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00015-0.

Rowlands S, Oloto E, Horwell D. Intrauterine devices and risk of uterine perforation: current perspectives. Open Access J Contracept. 2016;7:19–32. DOI:10.2147/OAJC.S85546.

Ples L, Sima RM, Moisei C, et al. An intrauterine contraceptive device: where did we find it after 29 years of insertion? A case report J Pak Med Assoc. 2017;67(1):131–133.

Kho KA, Chamsy DJ. Perforated intraperitoneal intrauterine contraceptive devices: diagnosis, management, and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):596–601. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.12.123.

Askarova K, Mamadjanova S, Ayubov B. When contraception goes rogue: bladder migration of an intrauterine device presenting as refractory cystitis. Urol Case Rep. 2025;63:103177. DOI: 10.1016/j.eucr.2025.103177.

Liu SX, Dong XY. Using laparoscope to remove an ectopic intrauterine device in the anterior wall of urinary bladder: A case report. World J Clin Cases. 2024;12:3221–3225. DOI:10.12998/wjcc.v12.i17.3221.

Tabatabaei F, Hosseini STN, Hakimi P, et al. Risk factors of uterine perforation with intrauterine devices. BMC Womens Health. 2024;24(1):538. DOI:10.1186/s12905-024-03298-3.

Gatz JL, Armstrong MA, Postlethwaite D, et al. Association between intrauterine device type and risk of perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;227(1):57.e1–57.e13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.062.

Varlas VN, Meianu AI, Radoi AI, et al. Intrauterine contraceptive device migrated to the urinary tract: case report and literature review. J Clin Med. 2024;13(14):4233. DOI:10.3390/jcm13144233.

Kaislasuo J, Suhonen S, Gissler M, et al. Uterine perforation caused by intrauterine devices: clinical course and treatment. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(6):1546–1551. DOI:10.1093/humrep/det074.

Mosley FR, Shahi N, Kurer MA. Elective surgical removal of migrated intrauterine contraceptive devices from within the peritoneal cavity: a comparison between open and laparoscopic removal. JSLS. 2012;16(2):236–241. DOI:10.4293/108680812X13427982377265.

Zhang M, Sun Z, Yang Y, et al. Complete bladder perforation caused by intrauterine devices: a nationwide case series. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2023;49(7):1821–1826. DOI: 10.1111/jog.15661.

Gupta A, Pajai S, Reddy LS, et al. Hysteroscopic removal of an intrauterine contraceptive device obstructed by polyps: a case report. Cureus. 2025;17(1):e77990. DOI:10.7759/cureus.77990.

Sanders AP, Sanders B. Hysteroscopic removal of intrauterine devices in pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(7):1408–1409. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.09.004.

Published

2026-06-15

How to Cite

Barahona-Ochoa, K. M., Chacón-Muñoz, T. E., Morales-Villacis, R. X., Delgado-Astudillo, E. P., Martinez-Soto, J. E., & Sarango-Lapo, P. J. (2026). Bladder Migration of an Intrauterine Device: Management Through Minimally Invasive Surgery: Migración vesical de dispositivo intrauterino: resolución por cirugía mínimamente invasiva. Peruvian Journal of Health Care and Global Health, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.22258/hgh.v10i2.430

Issue

Section

Case reports