Wu S, Hu J, Wildemeersch D
National Research Institute for Family Planning, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Contraception. 2000 Feb;61(2):91-8. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(00)00087-1.
This study was conducted to evaluate a new and improved inserter (GyneFix) for the anchoring of the Frameless IUD in the uterine cavity. Previous studies conducted with a prototype inserter (Flexigard) did not show fully the advantages of the new anchoring concept because of the shortcomings of the Flexigard inserter and the complexity of the insertion technique. The GyneFix IUD was compared with the TCu380A IUD in six centers in China in approximately 300 women in each group. Only parous women were included in the study. The data from this 3-year, ongoing study demonstrate that the shortcomings of the inserter have been corrected, resulting in better performance and a much reduced rate of failed insertion/expulsion of the frameless and anchored device. The cumulative expulsion rate with the GyneFix IUD was 3.0 at 3 years (annual rates 2.67, 0.33, and 0.0, respectively) compared with a cumulative expulsion rate of 7.38 at 3 years with TCu380A (annual rates 4.63, 1.76, and 1.04, respectively). This difference is statistically significant. The majority of the expulsions with the anchored IUD occurred early in the study, indicating improper anchoring technique. The study also shows that both devices are highly efficacious. No pregnancies occurred with the GyneFix IUD (cumulative pregnancy rate 0.0 at 3 years) versus one pregnancy with TCu380A (cumulative pregnancy rate 0.34 at 3 years). The total use-related discontinuation rate at 3 years was significantly lower with the GyneFix IUD (8.34) than with the TCu380A IUD (14.13) and results in a higher rate of continuation with the GyneFix IUD compared to the TCu380A IUD (90.73 vs 85.25). Neither perforations nor pelvic inflammatory disease cases were encountered with either device in this study, demonstrating the safety of the anchoring system.
本研究旨在评估一种新型改良的放置器(吉妮环),用于将无支架宫内节育器固定于宫腔内。此前使用原型放置器(弗来氏节育器)进行的研究,由于弗来氏节育器存在缺陷以及放置技术复杂,未能充分展现这种新型固定概念的优势。在中国的六个中心,对吉妮环宫内节育器和TCu380A宫内节育器进行了比较,每组约300名妇女。研究仅纳入经产妇。这项为期3年的正在进行的研究数据表明,放置器的缺陷已得到纠正,性能更佳,无支架且固定的装置插入/排出失败率大幅降低。吉妮环宫内节育器3年的累积排出率为3.0(年排出率分别为2.67、0.33和0.0),而TCu380A宫内节育器3年的累积排出率为7.38(年排出率分别为4.63、1.76和1.04)。这种差异具有统计学意义。固定宫内节育器的大多数排出情况发生在研究早期,表明固定技术不当。该研究还表明,两种装置的避孕效果都很高。使用吉妮环宫内节育器未发生妊娠(3年累积妊娠率为0.0),而使用TCu380A宫内节育器有1例妊娠(3年累积妊娠率为0.34)。吉妮环宫内节育器3年的总使用相关停用率(8.34)显著低于TCu380A宫内节育器(14.13),与TCu380A宫内节育器相比,吉妮环宫内节育器的继续使用率更高(90.73对85.25)。本研究中两种装置均未出现穿孔或盆腔炎病例,证明了固定系统的安全性。