Is 2-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography necessary 6 weeks after insertion of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device?

BACKGROUND: In Dutch practice, gynecologists are used to assessing the position of the LNG-IUD by performing a two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) directly after insertion and do not routinely invite patients for another consultation 4-12 weeks after insertion. There is no consensus whether a TVUS six weeks after insertion is routinely needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the incidence of malposition using 2-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography during routine investigation 6 weeks after insertion. In addition, we investigated the relationship between malposition of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device and unfavorable bleeding patterns and pelvic pain. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a large prospective cohort study. Patients seeking a levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device were eligible for inclusion. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed to check position of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device immediately after insertion and 6 weeks later. Patients filled in questionnaires about bleeding pattern and pelvic pain 6 weeks after insertion. RESULTS: From March 2015 to December 2016, we enrolled 500 patients. Data from the transvaginal ultrasonography assessment 6 weeks after insertion were available for 448 patients, and complete data (transvaginal ultrasonography and questionnaire data) were available for 363 patients (72.6%). Malposition rate was 6.3% (28/448 patients). Malposition was seen in 15 of 198 patients (7.6%) with unfavorable bleeding and/or pelvic pain and in 3 of 165 patients (1.8%) with favorable bleeding patterns and no pelvic pain (P=.03).Malposition was seen in 14 of 186 patients (7.5%) with an unfavorable bleeding pattern and in 4 of 177 patients (2.3%) with favorable bleeding patterns (P=.008). Malposition was seen in 5 of 50 patients (10%) with pelvic pain and in 13 of 313 patients (4.2%) without pelvic pain (P=.08). CONCLUSION: The malposition rate of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device observed using transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks after insertion was 6.3%. If patients have no complaints of unfavorable bleeding and/or pelvic pain, the risk for malposition is low (1.8%) and a routine transvaginal ultrasonography is not necessary. However, if patients experience unfavorable bleeding, a transvaginal ultrasonography should be considered to exclude malposition, because the effect of malposition on contraceptive effectiveness is unsure. Future research should focus on cost-benefit analysis

Is 2-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography necessary 6 weeks after insertion of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device?

BACKGROUND: In Dutch practice, gynecologists are used to assessing the position of the LNG-IUD by performing a two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) directly after insertion and do not routinely invite patients for another consultation 4-12 weeks after insertion. There is no consensus whether a TVUS six weeks after insertion is routinely needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the incidence of malposition using 2-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography during routine investigation 6 weeks after insertion. In addition, we investigated the relationship between malposition of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device and unfavorable bleeding patterns and pelvic pain. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a large prospective cohort study. Patients seeking a levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device were eligible for inclusion. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed to check position of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device immediately after insertion and 6 weeks later. Patients filled in questionnaires about bleeding pattern and pelvic pain 6 weeks after insertion. RESULTS: From March 2015 to December 2016, we enrolled 500 patients. Data from the transvaginal ultrasonography assessment 6 weeks after insertion were available for 448 patients, and complete data (transvaginal ultrasonography and questionnaire data) were available for 363 patients (72.6%). Malposition rate was 6.3% (28/448 patients). Malposition was seen in 15 of 198 patients (7.6%) with unfavorable bleeding and/or pelvic pain and in 3 of 165 patients (1.8%) with favorable bleeding patterns and no pelvic pain (P=.03). Malposition was seen in 14 of 186 patients (7.5%) with an unfavorable bleeding pattern and in 4 of 177 patients (2.3%) with favorable bleeding patterns (P=.008). Malposition was seen in 5 of 50 patients (10%) with pelvic pain and in 13 of 313 patients (4.2%) without pelvic pain (P=.08). CONCLUSION: The malposition rate of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device observed using transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks after insertion was 6.3%. If patients have no complaints of unfavorable bleeding and/or pelvic pain, the risk for malposition is low (1.8%) and a routine transvaginal ultrasonography is not necessary. However, if patients experience unfavorable bleeding, a transvaginal ultrasonography should be considered to exclude malposition, because the effect of malposition on contraceptive effectiveness is unsure. Future research should focus on cost-benefit analysis

Superiority of skinfold measurements and waist over waist-to-hip ratio for determination of body fat distribution in a population-based cohort of Caucasian Dutch adults

OBJECTIVE: To determine which anthropometric measurement is the most reliable alternative for fat distribution as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). DESIGN: Population-based survey carried out in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 376 individuals (200 women) with a mean age of 36.5 years and mean body mass index (BMI) of 24.0 (+/-3.1) kg/m2 underwent various anthropometric and DXA measurements of central (CFM) and peripheral fat mass (PFM). Furthermore, for the assessment of apple-shaped body composition, CFM-to-PFM ratio was calculated. Anthropometric measurements were waist and hip circumference, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), BMI, waist/length and the skinfold thickness of biceps, triceps, suprailiacal (SI), subscapular (SS) and upper leg. We determined whether equations of combined anthropometrics were even more reliable for the assessment of fat mass. RESULTS: In both women and men, reliable alternatives for CFM are central skinfolds and waist (Pearson's correlation (r) >or= 0.8). Peripheral skinfolds are the best predictors of PFM (r >or= 0.8). In contrast, WHR correlated only marginally with any of the DXA measurements. Equations based on several anthropometric variables correlate with CFM even better (R2 >or= 0.8). CFM-to-PFM ratio has the highest correlation with the ratio (SS+SI)/BMI in women (r = 0.66) and waist/length in men (r = 0.71). Equations are reasonable alternatives of CFM-to-PFM ratio (R2 >or= 0.5). CONCLUSION: Waist and skinfolds are reliable alternatives for the measurement of body fat mass in a cohort of Caucasian adults. WHR is not appropriate for the measurement of fat distribution