Copper chain

The copper chain is an intrauterine device (IUD), which is one of the hormone-free long-term contraceptive methods.

The copper chain is an intrauterine device (IUD) that is inserted into the uterus and is used to prevent pregnancy in women. Application, principle of action, effectiveness and risks correspond to those of other common IUDs. Insertion failures and first year ejections were significantly higher with the first model called Flexigard, which was launched in 1988. With the currently available model of the copper chain called GyneFix, however, no increased emission rates could be determined.

construction

The copper chain differs from other IUDs in its construction and placement in the uterus. The copper chain manages without a plastic framework, which is why it is also called a frameless IUD. Here, copper rings are strung on a thread that is anchored in the tissue of the uterus. The number of copper rings is variable, so that they can be used both in women who have already given birth and in young girls whose uterus is too small for a conventional IUD to be inserted. The variable length ensures that regardless of the size of the uterus, the entire length is supplied with the copper ions.

Application and advantages

The copper chain is inserted by a gynecologist. The thread of the chain is anchored in the muscle of the uterus and, according to the manufacturer, should offer protection against conception for five years. The copper chain is said to offer advantages of conventional IUDs (no disturbance of the cycle, no change in the female hormonal balance and high reliability, since no further actions on the part of the patient are necessary after insertion - in contrast to the pill, for example) and also because of the variable size and mobility should also be suitable for women for whom no conventional IUD fits. The necklace is particularly suitable for young childless women with a small uterus. The copper chain also works as immediate contraception for up to 5 days after unprotected sexual intercourse. The specified Pearl Index of 0.1-0.5 is slightly lower than that of the copper IUD or the pill.

disadvantage

Contraception with the copper chain cannot be started and ended independently, but only with the help of a gynecologist. As with other IUDs, there is a risk of penetration of the uterus during insertion. In the Flexigard model, the insert failed more often than for comparable IUDs (43/2072 versus 0/2036) with a frame, the reason given being the lack of knowledge about the special insert technology. In order for the copper chain to be anchored in the uterine muscle, it must have a minimum thickness of 10 mm. After many years of hormonal contraception, it is possible that the muscle will have to wait for regression. Due to the puncture of the muscles, the inlay can be more painful than with a conventional copper IUD, but the copper chain is less often removed due to pain than other IUD models. In addition, the comparatively different levels of costs (between € 180 and € 420) must be borne by yourself; however, these costs are only incurred every five years. In addition, the copper chain cannot be used in the event of copper intolerance, allergies or the very rare Wilson's disease (copper storage disease). Whether there is an allergy to copper can be clarified beforehand with a dermatologist or allergist.

distribution

The copper chain is sold by the Belgian manufacturer Contrel under the trade name GyneFix.

Web links

Individual evidence

↑ PA O'Brien, C. Marfleet: Frameless versus classical intrauterine device for contraception. In: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005, CD003282.
↑ ^a ^b O. Meirik et al .: The frameless copper IUD (GyneFix) and the TCu380A IUD: results of an 8-year multicenter randomized comparative trial. In: Contraception. Volume 80, 2009, pp. 133-141.
↑ H. Van Kets, M. Vrijens, Y. Van Trappen et al: The frameless GyneFix intrauterine implant: a major improvement in efficacy, expulsion and tolerance . In: Adv Contracept . tape 11 , 1995, pp. 131-142 .
^ X. Cao, W. Zhang, X. Zhao et al .: Three-year efficacy and acceptability of the GyneFix 200 intrauterine device. In: Contraception . tape 69 , 2004, pp. 207-211 .
↑ BA Gbolade: Immediate insertion of the postabortion version of the GyneFix intrauterine implant system - preliminary results . In: Adv Contracept. tape 12 , no. 2 , 1998, p. 91-96 .
↑ D. Wildemeersch, A. Andrade: Commentary: A historical note on the development of the frameless IUD . In: Contraception . tape 81 , no. 2 , 2010, p. 172-173 .
^ R. D'Souza, T. Masters, W. Bounds, J. Guillebaud: Randomized controlled trial assessing the acceptability of GyneFix versus GyneT380S for emergency contraception . Ed .: J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. Volume 29 , no. 2 , 2003, p. 23-29 .

[1] PA O'Brien, C. Marfleet: Frameless versus classical intrauterine device for contraception. In: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005, CD003282.

[Meirik_et_al-2] O. Meirik et al .: The frameless copper IUD (GyneFix) and the TCu380A IUD: results of an 8-year multicenter randomized comparative trial. In: Contraception. Volume 80, 2009, pp. 133-141.

[3] H. Van Kets, M. Vrijens, Y. Van Trappen et al: The frameless GyneFix intrauterine implant: a major improvement in efficacy, expulsion and tolerance . In: Adv Contracept . tape 11 , 1995, pp. 131-142 .

[4] X. Cao, W. Zhang, X. Zhao et al .: Three-year efficacy and acceptability of the GyneFix 200 intrauterine device. In: Contraception . tape 69 , 2004, pp. 207-211 .

[5] BA Gbolade: Immediate insertion of the postabortion version of the GyneFix intrauterine implant system - preliminary results . In: Adv Contracept. tape 12 , no. 2 , 1998, p. 91-96 .

[6] D. Wildemeersch, A. Andrade: Commentary: A historical note on the development of the frameless IUD . In: Contraception . tape 81 , no. 2 , 2010, p. 172-173 .

[7] R. D'Souza, T. Masters, W. Bounds, J. Guillebaud: Randomized controlled trial assessing the acceptability of GyneFix versus GyneT380S for emergency contraception . Ed .: J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. Volume 29 , no. 2 , 2003, p. 23-29 .