128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38421056)
1. Association of Intrauterine Device Malposition With Previous Cesarean Delivery and Related Uterine Anatomical Changes.
Doulaveris G; Jou J; Leung WK; Bircaj E; Orfanelli T; Atrio J; Dar P; Rotenberg O
J Ultrasound Med; 2024 Jun; 43(6):1121-1129. PubMed ID: 38421056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Uterine structural abnormality and intrauterine device malposition: analysis of ultrasonographic and demographic variables of 517 patients.
Gerkowicz SA; Fiorentino DG; Kovacs AP; Arheart KL; Verma U
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Feb; 220(2):183.e1-183.e8. PubMed ID: 30419198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Incidence and Risk Factors for a Malpositioned Intrauterine Device Detected on Three-Dimensional Ultrasound Within Eight Weeks of Placement.
Connolly CT; Fox NS
J Ultrasound Med; 2022 Jun; 41(6):1525-1536. PubMed ID: 34580900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Three-dimensional ultrasound detection of abnormally located intrauterine contraceptive devices which are a source of pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding.
Benacerraf BR; Shipp TD; Bromley B
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Jul; 34(1):110-5. PubMed ID: 19565532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Uterine dimensions and intrauterine device malposition: can ultrasound predict displacement or expulsion before it happens?
Çintesun FNİ; Çintesun E; Esenkaya Ü; Günenc O
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2020 Nov; 302(5):1181-1187. PubMed ID: 32748051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Ultrasound location of intrauterine devices placed at cesarean section over the first year postpartum.
Gonzalez J; Stimmel S; Rana R; Diggs AI; Pan S; Overbey J; Thomas AG; Lunde B
Contraception; 2020 Jun; 101(6):399-404. PubMed ID: 32201097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. CT imaging of intrauterine devices (IUD): expected findings, unexpected findings, and complications.
Zhu GG; Ludwig DR; Rogers DM; Olpin JD; Barker E; Freeman EA; Eisenberg DL; Siegel CL
Abdom Radiol (NY); 2024 Jan; 49(1):237-248. PubMed ID: 37907685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Laparotomy for Abdominal Adhesion and Removal of Intrauterine Device from Anatomically Distorted Uterus due to Adhesion in a 43-Year-Old Woman with 3 Previous Cesarean Sections.
Tjokroprawiro BA
Am J Case Rep; 2021 Dec; 22():e934530. PubMed ID: 34955527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The role of three-dimensional imaging in the investigation of IUD malposition.
Kalmantis K; Daskalakis G; Lymberopoulos E; Stefanidis K; Papantoniou N; Antsaklis A
Bratisl Lek Listy; 2009; 110(3):174-7. PubMed ID: 19507639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Malpositioned intrauterine contraceptive devices: risk factors, outcomes, and future pregnancies.
Braaten KP; Benson CB; Maurer R; Goldberg AB
Obstet Gynecol; 2011 Nov; 118(5):1014-1020. PubMed ID: 22015868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Intrauterine device failure: relation to its location within the uterine cavity.
Anteby E; Revel A; Ben-Chetrit A; Rosen B; Tadmor O; Yagel S
Obstet Gynecol; 1993 Jan; 81(1):112-4. PubMed ID: 8416443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The shadow of the intrauterine device.
Valsky DV; Cohen SM; Hochner-Celnikier D; Lev-Sagie A; Yagel S
J Ultrasound Med; 2006 May; 25(5):613-6. PubMed ID: 16632785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The width of the uterine cavity is narrower in patients with an embedded intrauterine device (IUD) compared to a normally positioned IUD.
Shipp TD; Bromley B; Benacerraf BR
J Ultrasound Med; 2010 Oct; 29(10):1453-6. PubMed ID: 20876899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Use of ultrasound in predicting success of intrauterine contraceptive device insertion immediately after delivery.
Dias T; Abeykoon S; Kumarasiri S; Gunawardena C; Padeniya T; D'Antonio F
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Jul; 46(1):104-8. PubMed ID: 25418016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Menstrual characteristics and ultrasonographic uterine cavity measurements predict bleeding and pain in nulligravid women using intrauterine contraception.
Kaislasuo J; Heikinheimo O; Lähteenmäki P; Suhonen S
Hum Reprod; 2015 Jul; 30(7):1580-8. PubMed ID: 25990577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Does the type of intrauterine device affect conspicuity on 2D and 3D ultrasound?
Moschos E; Twickler DM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jun; 196(6):1439-43. PubMed ID: 21606311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Retained Intrauterine Device (IUD): Triple Case Report and Review of the Literature.
Cheung ML; Rezai S; Jackman JM; Patel ND; Bernaba BZ; Hakimian O; Nuritdinova D; Turley CL; Mercado R; Takeshige T; Reddy SM; Fuller PN; Henderson CE
Case Rep Obstet Gynecol; 2018; 2018():9362962. PubMed ID: 30627466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance of a handheld point of care ultrasonography to assess IUD position compared to conventional transvaginal ultrasonography.
Araujo KG; Yoshida A; Juliato CRT; Sarian LO; Derchain S
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 2024 Apr; 29(2):69-75. PubMed ID: 38651645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Three-dimensional ultrasonography versus two-dimensional ultrasonography for the diagnosis of intrauterine device malposition.
Chen XY; Guo QY; Wang W; Huang LL
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2015 Feb; 128(2):157-9. PubMed ID: 25467914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Factors affecting intrauterine contraceptive device performance. I. Endometrial cavity length.
Hasson HM; Berger GS; Edelman DA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1976 Dec; 126(8):973-81. PubMed ID: 998687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
