The effect of early vs. delayed postpartum insertion of the LNG-IUS on breastfeeding continuation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

A. Abdelhakim, Mohammad Sunoqrot, A. H. Amin, H. Nabil, Ayman N. Raslan, A. Samy
{"title":"The effect of early vs. delayed postpartum insertion of the LNG-IUS on breastfeeding continuation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials","authors":"A. Abdelhakim, Mohammad Sunoqrot, A. H. Amin, H. Nabil, Ayman N. Raslan, A. Samy","doi":"10.1080/13625187.2019.1665175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: The aim of the study was to compare early vs. delayed postpartum insertion of the 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). Methods: The databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to February 2019. The search comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early vs. delayed postpartum insertion of the LNG-IUS. Data were extracted and combined in a meta-analysis. Pooled results were expressed as the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The main outcome measures were breastfeeding continuation, LNG-IUS expulsion, uterine perforation, LNG-IUS use, satisfaction and number of pregnancies. Results: Twelve RCTs were included, comprising 1006 women in total. Our analysis indicated no significant difference between early and delayed insertion of the LNG-IUS in terms of any breastfeeding continuation (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.84, 1.16; p = 0.88). After removal of heterogeneity, there was a statistically significant superiority in LNG-IUS use at the endpoint in the early insertion group compared with the delayed insertion group (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.07, 1.51; p = 0.006). LNG-IUS expulsion was significantly less in the delayed insertion group in comparison with the early insertion group (RR 5.32; 95% CI 2.68, 10.53; p = 0.00001). No significant differences were found between the groups in satisfaction, number of pregnancies and risk of uterine perforation. Conclusion: Early postpartum insertion of the LNG-IUS has no negative effects on breastfeeding continuation. Early postpartum insertion may be used as an alternative to delayed postpartum insertion.","PeriodicalId":22423,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care","volume":"74 1","pages":"327 - 336"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2019.1665175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract Objective: The aim of the study was to compare early vs. delayed postpartum insertion of the 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). Methods: The databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to February 2019. The search comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early vs. delayed postpartum insertion of the LNG-IUS. Data were extracted and combined in a meta-analysis. Pooled results were expressed as the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The main outcome measures were breastfeeding continuation, LNG-IUS expulsion, uterine perforation, LNG-IUS use, satisfaction and number of pregnancies. Results: Twelve RCTs were included, comprising 1006 women in total. Our analysis indicated no significant difference between early and delayed insertion of the LNG-IUS in terms of any breastfeeding continuation (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.84, 1.16; p = 0.88). After removal of heterogeneity, there was a statistically significant superiority in LNG-IUS use at the endpoint in the early insertion group compared with the delayed insertion group (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.07, 1.51; p = 0.006). LNG-IUS expulsion was significantly less in the delayed insertion group in comparison with the early insertion group (RR 5.32; 95% CI 2.68, 10.53; p = 0.00001). No significant differences were found between the groups in satisfaction, number of pregnancies and risk of uterine perforation. Conclusion: Early postpartum insertion of the LNG-IUS has no negative effects on breastfeeding continuation. Early postpartum insertion may be used as an alternative to delayed postpartum insertion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
早期与延迟产后插入LNG-IUS对母乳喂养延续的影响:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析
摘要目的:比较52 mg左炔诺孕酮宫内系统(LNG-IUS)在产后早期与延迟置入的效果。方法:检索PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和CENTRAL数据库至2019年2月。该研究包括随机对照试验(rct),比较早期和延迟产后插入LNG-IUS。数据被提取并合并为荟萃分析。合并结果表示为相对危险度(RR), 95%置信区间(CI)。主要观察指标为母乳喂养延续、LNG-IUS排出、子宫穿孔、LNG-IUS使用、满意度和妊娠次数。结果:纳入12项随机对照试验,共1006名女性。我们的分析显示,早期和延迟插入LNG-IUS在任何母乳喂养延续方面没有显著差异(RR 0.99;95% ci 0.84, 1.16;p = 0.88)。在消除异质性后,与延迟插入组相比,早期插入组在终点使用LNG-IUS的优势具有统计学意义(RR 1.27;95% ci 1.07, 1.51;p = 0.006)。与早期插入组相比,延迟插入组的LNG-IUS排出明显减少(RR 5.32;95% ci 2.68, 10.53;p = 0.00001)。两组在满意度、妊娠次数和子宫穿孔风险方面无显著差异。结论:产后早期插入LNG-IUS对母乳喂养延续无负面影响。产后早期插入可作为延迟产后插入的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pain relief during intrauterine device placement in nulligravid women with both oral ketorolac and an analgesic: a double-blinded randomised trial Legal abortion requests and outcomes for women when the law is restrictive – experience from a referral centre in south-eastern Brazil ‘Do I want children later in life?’ Reproductive intentions of 1700 adolescents Oestrogens in oral contraception: considerations for tailoring prescription to women’s needs Prevalence of high-risk HPV and cervical dysplasia in IUD users and controls: a cross sectional study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1