[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 14, 1966

The Intrauterine Contraceptive Device

Author Affiliations

Brooklyn, NY

JAMA. 1966;195(11):970. doi:10.1001/jama.1966.03100110138049

To the Editor:—  Seward, et al are to be praised for bringing to the attention of the general medical community one of the most serious shortcomings to the intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUCDs) (194:1385, 1965).IUCDs are the shining hope for control of population growth. Until they are replaced by an alternative method that is superior as a contraceptive, much effort must be directed toward making them as safe as possible.Perforations following the insertion of IUCDs have been reported since Richter1 described this method of contraception in 1909. It is common knowledge to gynecologists that perforations of the uterus may occur after any intrauterine manipulation. I have found2 that the perforation rate in 77,903 curettages, accumulated in collected reports, was 3.23 per 1,000 operations. Word in a report on 1,671 curettages found 22 perforations for a rate of 13.2 per 1,000.3 Higher rates than this are

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview