Randomized comparative trial in parous women of the frameless GyneFix® and the TCu380A intrauterine devices: long-term experience in a Chinese family planning clinic

• Published in: The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care 2000, Vol.5 (2), p.135-140
• Main Authors: Cao, X., Zhang, W., Gao, G., Van Kets, H., Wildemeersch, D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; China - epidemiology; Copper; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Equipment Design; Equipment Failure; Expulsion rates; Female; Frameless GyneFix IUD; Humans; Intrauterine Device Expulsion; Intrauterine Devices - economics; Life Tables; Medical removals; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Single-center randomized comparative trial; Stainless Steel; TCu380A IUD
• ISSN: 1362-5187; 1473-0782
• DOI: 10.1080/13625180008500386

Objective To compare the clinical performance of two intrauterine devices (the frameless GyneFix® intrauterine device (IUD) and the TCu380A IUD) during long-term use. Study design This was a randomized comparative study. A total of 157 insertions of the GyneFix IUD were compared with 156 insertions of the TCu380A IUD in the Tianjin Municipal Institute for Family Planning, China. Only parous women were included in the study. Insertions were conducted by the first three authors. The trial extended over a 9-year period, with over 10 000 woman-months of experience. Results The study showed that both devices are highly efficacious. No pregnancies occurred with the GyneFix IUD (cumulative pregnancy rate 0.0), compared to one pregnancy with the TCu380A IUD (cumulative pregnancy rate 0.64). The cumulative expulsion rate with the GyneFix IUD was 1.91 (three expulsions occurred, two of which were during the first 6 months), compared to a cumulative expulsion rate of 5.13 (eight expulsions) with the TCu380A (p = 0.1112). The total use-related discontinuation rate (terminations were mainly due to bleeding disturbances) was significantly lower (p = 0.0051) with the GyneFix IUD (4.46) than with the TCu380A IUD (14.10) and resulted in a higher rate of continuation with the GyneFix IUD compared to the TCu380A IUD (92.36 versus 83.97). Neither perforations nor cases of pelvic inflammatory disease were encountered with either device in this study, demonstrating the safety of the anchoring system. Conclusion The results of the present clinical trial are in agreement with the findings of other multicenter, randomized, comparative, clinical trials that have investigated these two IUDs in China, as well as with the findings of other large-scale international studies conducted with the frameless IUD.