4.3 Article

Effects of a single Silastic® contraceptive implant containing nomegestrol acetate (Uniplant) on endometrial morphology and ovarian function for 1 year

期刊

CONTRACEPTION
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 492-497

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2006.07.013

关键词

uniplant; bleeding; endometrium; hysteroscopy; contraception

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of a subdermal implant containing nomegestrol acetate (Uniplant) on endometrial histology and ovarian function. Methods: Twenty healthy female volunteers of reproductive age were included and completed a menstrual diary throughout the study. Hysteroscopy, transvaginal sonography and blood sampling were performed prior to implant insertion (control cycle) and following 6 and 12 months of Uniplant use. Transvaginal sonography was performed every other day from Day 8 of the cycle up to the obtainment of sonographic evidence of a 12-mm follicle, then every day until the obtainment of sonographic evidence of follicular rupture and thereafter every other day until the next menstrual bleeding. Blood samples were taken for the measurement of estradiol, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone and progesterone on the same days on which transvaginal sonography was performed. The implants were removed after I year. Results: Twenty percent of cycles were ovulatory, and 80% were anovulatory. The development of persistent nonluteinized follicle occurred in 40% of all cycles studied, inadequate luteal phase occurred in 20% of cycles and no follicular development occurred in 40%. Endometrial thickness remained below 8 mm in all cycles studied. Alterations in endometrial vascularization were observed in all treated cycles. Conclusion: Our results suggest that this long-acting contraceptive method affects follicular growth and endometrial vascularization, disrupts endometrial architecture and leads to inadequate luteal phase. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据