Norplant® implants in the UK: First year continuation and removals

Norplant^® implants are a long-term, reversible hormonal method of contraception consisting of six flexible capsules placed subdermally in the inner aspect of the nondominant arm. Norplant implants were introduced into the UK in October 1993 although they had been used previously in some countries for up to ten years. The insertion and removal techniques require skills training and therefore it is important to assess early experience with the method.

This survey looks at the first year continuation rate of Norplant implants in the UK from a total of 2,129 insertions. From these insertions, 133 removals were documented and described, using a checklist of features. The continuation rate for Norplant implants use was 96.5% at six months and 85.2% at one year. None of the reasons for discontinuation were of a serious nature. The most common reason given was menstrual change (50.4% of all removals, 3% of all women included in the survey), which is in line with other reported studies.

Of the removals, 71.5% were reported as straightforward (of these 65.6% were completed within 20 minutes). In the first year of use, Norplant implants were associated with high continuation rates and the removal procedure was, in the majority of cases, completely straight-forward.     

国产皮下埋植剂因月经异常停用的影响因素分析

长效单纯孕激素皮下埋植剂上市20多年来,因其高效、安全、方便、长效、可逆等优点,受到广大育龄妇女的欢迎,但单纯孕激素引起的月经紊乱问题成为限制其可接受性的主要因素[1]。本文通过5年的随访研究,采用COX多元逐步回归方法分析中国经产妇使用国产皮下埋植剂后因月经异常停用     

Implantable contraceptives for women: effectiveness, discontinuation rates, return of fertility, and outcome of pregnancies

Progestogen-only contraceptive implants are highly effective. In most studies, 5-year cumulative pregnancy rates are less than 1.5/100 women for Norplant and Norplant II. No study has yet reported any failures with Implanon. Weight over 70 kg and age at insertion under 25 years both increase the failure rate of Norplant and Norplant II; however, data are as yet lacking for Implanon. The effectiveness of other progestogen-only implants for which there are as yet few data are unlikely to be any different. Continuation rates are high compared with other hormonal methods and with the intrauterine device. In most cohorts at least 35% of women, and often many more, are still using Norplant by the end of 5 years. Rates vary according to a number of factors, including population studied, age, and parity. Menstrual disturbance is by far the most common reason for discontinuation, with headache, acne, weight gain, and desire for pregnancy accounting for other common reasons for implant removal. Fertility returns rapidly following implant removal, and pregnancy rates (76-100% 1 year after removal) are usually no different from those following discontinuation of any other contraceptive method. There is no increase in the risk of ectopic pregnancy, fetal malformation, or impaired infant health in pregnancies conceived either during implant use or after removal.     

The Emory Method: A modified approach to Norplant implants removal

Norplant^® implants were removed from fifty (50) patients using a modified approach to Norplant^® implant removal (Emory Method). Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the removals were accomplished in less than 10 minutes using this technique. The average time for removal of Norplant^® implants from 50 women included in the current study was 8 minutes. The Emory Method for Norplant^® implant removal includes three steps which are different from the technique developed by the Population Council. More anesthesia, a slightly longer incision and vigorous disruption of the tissue encapsulation surrounding the implants are recommended. The Emory Method is fast, safe and easy to perform. It has been successfully taught to over twenty-five clinicians.     

Norplant contraceptive implants: rods versus capsules

Norplant contraceptive implants are silastic implants containing levonorgestrel. When placed subcutaneously in the medial aspect of the upper arm, they release low levels of levonorgestrel in a constant manner over an extended period of time. Comparative studies of two silastic rods versus six capsules containing levonorgestrel were studied in 250 subjects for 4,464 months of use. Only one pregnancy occurred during the study. Side effect patterns were similar in both groups; the major side effect being irregular uterine bleeding. The bleeding, however, was well tolerated by subjects in both groups and discontinuation rate was very low. The two-rod system offers the advantages of easier insertion technique and shorter insertion time as well as ease of removal as compared to the six-capsule system. Norplant contraceptive implants offer a highly effective means of contraception which is particularly suited for women who are concerned about failure and compliance with oral contraceptives. This type of contraception should become well accepted, not only in underdeveloped countries, but in developed countries as well.     

Transition from Norplant to Jadelle in a clinic with extensive experience providing contraceptive implants

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the transition process from providing Norplant, the six-capsule first contraceptive implant system, to providing Jadelle, the two-rod second-generation system, in a clinical setting with extensive experience providing Norplant implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred forty-nine women requesting contraceptive implants from the PROFAMILIA clinic (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) were provided with information regarding the differences and similarities between the two implant systems being studied, including the easier insertion and removal procedures and the possible shorter use life associated with Jadelle. A questionnaire evaluating their preference and the reason why they chose either system was provided. The health care providers' opinions about the two systems were also studied. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of the women preferred Jadelle over Norplant. The main reason behind their preference for Jadelle was its reduced number of implants with easier insertion and removal and less visibility in the arm, whereas that for Norplant was greater familiarity. Providers overwhelmingly preferred Jadelle. A 1-h presentation was sufficient training for providers experienced with Norplant. None had any problem with the management of Jadelle. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of Jadelle in a clinic with extensive experience with Norplant was easy and uneventful, but both methods should be available during a transition period of several months while confidence in the new method is being acquired by the community.     

Five-year experience with Norplant

At Klinik Raden Saleh, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Indonesia, from 1 May until 31 August, 1981, Norplant contraceptive implants were inserted into 437 Indonesian women. The continuation rates of Norplant at first, second, third, fourth and fifth year were, respectively, 96%, 92%, 88%, 82% and 78%. Bleeding problems were the most common cause for removal. The cumulative five-year net pregnancy rate for Norplant was 1.8 per 100 women. The Norplant contraceptive system is thus seen to combine the highest acceptability as measured by its continuation rate with the highest long-term effectiveness among the available temporary contraceptive methods.     

A five-year clinical evaluation of NORPLANT contraceptive subdermal implants in Bangladeshi acceptors

A non-comparative study of the Norplant contraceptive subdermal implant system was conducted in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The study was designed to evaluate the contraceptive efficacy, safety and overall acceptability of Norplant implants. Six hundred women were enrolled in the clinical trial, which began in 1985 at three study sites. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1, 3, and 6 months after Norplant implant insertion, and every six months thereafter until removal or at the end of five years. There were no post-insertion pregnancies during Norplant implant use in this study. After five years of Norplant implant use, there was no clinically significant change in body weight, systolic or diastolic blood pressure. Less than 3% of the women ever reported having any significant medical problems such as migraine, respiratory or cardiac problems during the study. The gross cumulative continuation rate was 41.2 per 100 women at the end of five years. The two most frequently reported reasons for discontinuation during the study were menstrual problems and desired pregnancy. Of the women who completed the five-year user satisfaction questionnaire, the majority of the women (86.3%) planned to continue using contraception after study completion. Of these women, approximately one-third said they planned to use another Norplant set. The findings presented suggest that the Norplant system is a highly effective, safe and acceptable method among Bangladeshi women.     

A comparison of the clinical performance, contraceptive efficacy, reversibility and acceptability of Norplant implants and Ortho Gynae T380 intrauterine copper contraceptive device

In this comparative study, the five-year continuity rate of 53.7% in the Norplant implants group was comparable to that of 52.7% in the copper IUD group. The difference was not statistically significant. Only one accidental pregnancy occurred during the five years of copper IUD use.Desire for future pregnancy was the main reason for removal in the Norplant implants group (35.9%) while expulsion of the IUD (13.2%) was the main reason for removal of the copper IUD. Menstrual disturbance was not a major side-effect in either group.The post-removal conception rates of 78.6% in the Norplant implants group and 75.0% in the copper IUD were good and comparable.Both the Norplant implants and copper IUD are acceptable and effective contraceptive methods in Singapore.     

Use of Norplant implants in a New York City clinic population

Two-hundred-eight women attending family planning clinics in New York City who received the Norplant contraceptive system during the first sixteen months of Norplant implants insertions were evaluated. Within this clinic population, Norplant implants were a popular contraceptive choice and were removed from 64 of the 208 recipients. Reasons for removal included bleeding, weight gain, and headache, and were consistent with those found in the clinical trials. Prior satisfaction with oral contraceptives did not predict success or failure with Norplant implants. The rate of follow-up visits to the family planning clinics was low. However, evidence exists that these women did not lose contact with the medical center and continued to receive health care.     

Effect of Norplant contraceptive on the bones of Nigerian women as assessed by quantitative ultrasound and serum markers of bone turnover

Levonorgestrel is a commonly used progestin-only contraceptive that is available as subdermal (Norplant) and intrauterine implants. Other progestin-only contraceptives such as injectable medroxyprogeterone acetate have been shown to decrease bone mineral density in long-term users. We used calcaneal ultrasound to compare the bone quality of Nigerian women between 25 and 50 years of age who had Norplant implants for 1-4 years to that of women who were not using any form of hormonal contraceptive. The mean stiffness index of women who had Norplant implants for as long as 4 years was not significantly different from that of controls. However, serum markers of bone turnover were significantly decreased in women with Norplant implants compared to age-matched controls. Serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase was significantly decreased in subjects with Norplant implants for 1 year (13.7+/-6.0 vs. 23.0 U/L for controls, p = .001) and serum NTx was significantly decreased in subjects with implants for 3 years (10.6+/-4.9 vs. 17.6+/-7.7 bone collagen equivalents per liter for controls, p < .001). We conclude that although levonorgestrel contraceptive decreased overall bone turnover, it had no deleterious effect on the bone quality of women using Norplant implants for up to 4 years.     

A randomized multicenter study comparing the efficacy and bleeding pattern of a single-rod (Implanon) and a six-capsule (Norplant) hormonal contraceptive implant.

To compare the contraceptive efficacy, tolerability, and bleeding patterns, 200 healthy female volunteers received, in an open, comparative, randomized, multicenter study in China, either a single-rod (Implanon) or a six-capsule (Norplant) contraceptive implant for 2 years with an optional extension of up to 4 years. Women were exposed to Implanon for 341.6 woman-years and Norplant for 329.1 woman-years. There were no pregnancies during the study. Per 90-day reference period, the median number of bleeding/spotting days with Implanon decreased from 33.5 in the first period to 19.0-21.5 days in the last year. Similarly, with Norplant, the median number of bleeding/spotting days decreased from 34.5 to 18.0-23.0 days, respectively. The number of bleeding/spotting episodes during year 1 was 2.0 per 90-day reference period with Implanon and 3.0 per period with Norplant (p < 0.05 for periods 1-4). For the remaining 90-day periods, there was no statistical difference between the two groups. In general, there was less frequent bleeding with Implanon compared with Norplant, whereas the incidences of amenorrhea and infrequent bleeding were higher with Implanon than with Norplant. The mean overall incidence of prolonged bleeding fell markedly during the study, from 66.0% in reference period 1 to 27.3% in period 16 with Implanon and from 69.0% to 21.7% with Norplant, respectively. The most common adverse events were related to disturbed bleeding patterns, which were also the major reasons for discontinuation (Implanon n = 8; Norplant n = 14). Normal menses returned in almost all subjects within 3 months after removal of the implants. Implanon was inserted in a mean time of 0.61 min and Norplant in 3.90 min (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean time required to remove the implant was significantly shorter for Implanon than for Norplant (2.18 min vs 11.25 min, p < 0.001). The maximum time required for removal of the implant was 10 min for the Implanon group and 60 min for the Norplant group. In both groups, blood pressure and hemoglobin were not affected, whereas body weight tended to increase. It can be concluded that both contraceptive systems demonstrated excellent contraceptive efficacy and were well tolerated. Compared with Norplant, there was less frequent bleeding with Implanon, whereas the incidence of infrequent bleeding and amenorrhea was higher. Implanon was significantly quicker to insert and to remove than was the multiple capsule system.     

Levonorgestrel plasma levels during continuous administration with different models of subdermal implants

Plasma concentrations of levonorgestrel were determined in women using subdermal levonorgestrel implants. One group had 6 Silastic capsules (NORPLANT), one group had 4 and one group had 6 covered Silastic rods for variable lengths of time. Levonorgestrel concentrations remained constant around 0.4 ng/ml up until 6 years of use in the Norplant group. The observation period was shorter for the covered rods; plasma concentrations were, however, constant around 0.55 ng/ml and 0.70 ng/ml for 3.5 years with the 4 rods and 6 covered rods, respectively. The difference in mean levonorgestrel concentrations between the three groups were statistically significant (p less than 0.0005). Plasma levels of levonorgestrel were twice to three times higher in blood obtained from the arm with the implants compared to the levels found in the other arm. The application of a tourniquet for variable periods before blood sampling did not influence the plasma concentrations of levonorgestrel.     

Phase II randomized comparative clinical trial of Norplant (six capsules) with Norplant-2 (two covered rods) subdermal implants for long-term contraception: report of a 24-month study. National Programme of Research in Human Reproduction

In a randomized clinical study, contraceptive efficacy and bleeding patterns were studied in a group of healthy, regularly menstruating, non-lactating women (n = 84) using two 4.4 cm covered silastic rods containing levonorgestrel, Norplant(R)-2, and compared with another group of women (n = 88) using six 3.4 cm capsules also containing levonorgestrel, Norplant(R). The silastic rods or capsules were placed subdermally in the medial aspect of the upper arm. No method failure was reported up to 24 months of use in this study with either of the device. The bleeding pattern was also similar for both devices as indicated by average episode length, number of bleeding runs and number of spotting days. The continuation rates with both devices were over 80 per 100 users at the end of 12 months and over 65 per 100 users at the end of 24 months. Discontinuations due to expulsion of the device, bleeding problems or personal reasons were few and similar for both devices. The results suggest that silastic-covered rods, Norplant(R)-2, which are comparatively easier to insert and remove and have similar clinical effect, could replace capsules, Norplant(R), as a long-term reversible subdermal contraceptive.     

A 5-year clinical evaluation of norplant® implants in senegal

The principal objective of this 5-year clinical study of Norplant® implants was to introduce these implants into the family planning program in Senegal and to determine their overall acceptability and safety in Senegalese acceptors. A total of 300 subjects were enrolled into the trial from August 1986 to July 1991. All the women were followed-up for 5 years or until the implants were removed. The pooled cumulative discontinuation rate was 40.8 ± 2.91 per 100 women resulting in a continuation rate of 59.2 ± 2.91 per 100 women. Thirteen subjects (4.3%) were lost during the follow-up. Seven pregnancies were reported throughout the 5 years leading to a cumulative pregnancy rate of 3.3 ± 1.25 per 100 women. Menstrual problems were the reason most often given for early removal during the first 2 years. After year 2, desire for another pregnancy was the main reason for implant removal. The results presented in this study show that the Norplant implant system is a safe, effective, and acceptable method that meets the needs of the Senegalese family planning program.     

Prolonged effectiveness of Norplant(R) capsule implants: a 7-year study

Soft tubing Norplant(R) contraceptive implants were studied in 1210 women for 7 years to measure the duration of effectiveness and the magnitude of the pregnancy rates over that time. Mean age at enrollment was 27.4 years. Of the enrollees, 42% were US residents. One-sixth (16.1%) weighed >/=70 kg at the time of implant placement. At the end of 5 years, the cumulative pregnancy rate was 1.1/100; at the end of 7 years, it was 1.9/100. No pregnancies occurred to any of the 400 women who enrolled in the study at age >/=30 years and who weighed <100 kg. Among women aged 18-33 years, the 7-year Norplant pregnancy rates are comparable to the median pregnancy rates of tubal sterilization methods for women of the same age and duration of use. For women aged >/=34 years, without regard to weight at admission, the 7-year effectiveness of soft tubing Norplant equals or surpasses that of tubal sterilization. For continuing implant users, annual pregnancy rates <1.0/100 in years 6 and 7, together with low cumulative pregnancy rates, testify that Norplant capsule implants remain highly effective for 7 years.     

The “U” technique: A new method for Norplant implants removal

The standard technique for Norplant implants removal was compared with a new technique called the “U” technique, which employs the use of a modified no-scalpel vas deferens holding forceps to grasp and remove the capsules. Seventy-six women requesting Norplant implants removal were randomly assigned to Group 1 (standard removal technique) or Group 2 (“U” removal technique). Variables measured included: (a) time required for complete removal, (b) number of capsules not broken or damaged during removal, and (c) number of incisions required for removal of all six capsules. In clients with visible or palpable capsules, the standard removal technique required significantly more time to remove all six capsules, on average, than the “U” technique (19 versus 7 minutes, p < 0.001); also more capsules were damaged during removal (5.6 undamaged versus 6.0,p < 0.01). In addition, with the standard technique, five clients required two incisions for removal of all six capsules while none of the clients required more than one incision with the “U” technique. Our conclusion is that the “U” technique is a quicker and easier method of removing Norplant capsules than the standard technique.     

Contraceptive implants and lactation

The safety and efficacy of four contraceptive implants, plant, Implanon, Nestorone and Elcometrine, have been evaluated during use in the postpartum period by lactating women. These implants provide highly effective contraceptive protection with no negative effect on breastfeeding or infant growth and development. Breastfeeding women initiating Norplant use in the second postpartum month experience significantly longer periods of amenorrhea than do untreated women or intrauterine device users. After weaning, the bleeding pattern is similar to that observed in non-nursing women. Norplant use does not affect bone turnover and density during lactation. Norplant and Implanon release orally active progestins while Nestorone and Elcometrine implants release an orally inactive progestin, which represents an advantage since the infant should be free of steroidal effects. The infant's daily intake of steroids (estimated from concentrations in maternal milk during the first month of use) range from 90 to 100 ng of levonorgestrel (Norplant), 75-120 ng of etonogestrel (Implanon), and 50 ng and 110 ng of Nestorone (Nestorone and Elcometrine implants, respectively). Nursing women needing contraception may use progestin-only implants when nonhormonal methods are not available or acceptable. Implants that deliver orally active steroids should only be used after 6 weeks postpartum to avoid transferring of steroids to the newborn.     

Potential barriers to the removal of Norplant among family planning clinic patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the prevalence and effects of potential barriers to removal of levonorgestrel implants (Norplant) among low-income women. METHODS: A sample of 687 women who received Norplant at hospital-based family planning clinics were interviewed before Norplant insertion and 6 months after Norplant insertion (or at Norplant removal if removal occurred earlier). Those who continued to use Norplant were reinterviewed at 2 years or at removal. RESULTS: In a multivariate analysis, only 1 of the 4 potential barriers--cost--significantly impeded Norplant discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Family planning clinics need to make clear that they follow a policy of Norplant removal on demand, regardless of the patient's ability to pay.     

Nonpalpable ultrasonographically not detectable Implanon rods can be localized by magnetic resonance imaging

Recently, the contraceptive implant Implanon has been introduced in several European countries. In comparison to the six-capsule preparation Norplant, the removal of this single-rod system should be associated with less complications. However, the removal of nonpalpable Implanon rods can be difficult because the implant is not always visible with ultrasound. The aim of this study was to find a radiologic method for the localization of Implanon implants that are nonpalpable and can not be detected by ultrasound. X-ray, ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were investigated as methods to localize Implanon in a pig chest preparation and in a woman with a nonpalpable implant. The implant in the woman could be localized unequivocally only by MRI. We conclude that MRI is the best method for the unequivocal localization of nonpalpable, ultrasonographically not detectable Implanon rods. To avoid unnecessary scar tissue formation, it may be appropriate to defer surgery for the removal until definitive localization.