Skip to main content
Log in

The frameless GyneFix® intrauterine implant: A major improvement in efficacy, expulsion and tolerance

  • Published:
Advances in Contraception

Abstract

The CuFix (GyneFix), conceived in 1985, was developed to minimize three major problems frequently associated with discontinuation of IUD use: expulsion, bleeding and pain. Since the initial clinical investigations, over 10 000 woman years of experience and upt to 8 years of follow-up in international multicenter, non-comparative and comparative clinical trials, including a large proportion of nulligravid/nulliparous women, have been collected. Based on new clinical information about the GyneFix from a long-term multicenter clinical trial, conducted in young nulligravid/nulliparous and parous women, the importance of this new contraceptive is discussed. The following conclusions were reached:

  • - The unique design characteristics of the GyneFix (frameless, flexible and fixed to the fundus of the uterus) have resulted in optimal tolerance and almost complete abence of expulsion. The result is enhanced effectiveness (comparble to OCs and male/female sterilization) and a high rate of continued use. The GyneFix reduces the IUD failture rate to a minimum and is therefore, an welcome reversible alternative to OCs and female surgical contraception.

  • - Framelessness and flexibility explain the absence of side-effects and adverse events caused by dimensional incompatibility between the frame of conventional IUDs and the uterine cavity and may also explain the absence of PID and ectopic pregnancies in any of the clinical studies.

The GyneFix is a promising new, highly effective and safe, contraceptive option for parous women and an equally effective and well-accepted method for nulliparous women.

Resumé

Concu en 1985, le CuFix (GynéFix®), a été développé dans le but de minimaliser les trois causes majeures qui le plus fréquemment entrainaient d'un stérilet. Il s'agit de l'expulsion, des saignements/ménorragis et des douleurs.

Depuis le premières investigations cliniques investigation, plus de 10.000 années-femmes out pu être collectées et une expérience de plus de 8 ans à été acquise dans des études internationales, multicentriques, comparatives et non-comparatives et dont une large part chez des nulligestes. Sur la base d'une étude clinique multicentrique chez des jeunes femmes nulligestes et des femmes qui ont eu des enfants, de nouvelles informations cliniques faites avec le GynéFix, démontrent l'importance du nouveau contraceptif.

Le présent article a pour but de présenter les conclusions. Celles-ci sont:

  • - Les caractéristiques du GynéFix, à savoir: absence de matrice en plastique, grande flexibilité et fixation permanente dans la paroi du fond utérin; entrainent une tolérance optimale et une absence quasi-totale d'expulsion. On enrégistre dès lors, une efficacité supérieure à celle obtenue avec des stérilets classiques (comparable à la pilule et à la stérilisation masculine ou féminine) ainsi qu'un taux élevé de continuation. Le GynéFix réduit donc le taux d'échec au minimum et est, pour cette raison, une alternative qui arrive à propos pour la pilute et la contraception chirurgicale.

  • - L'absence d'un squelette en plastique et la grande flexibilité du GynéFix réduisent les effects secondaires et annihilent les complications dues à une incompatibilité dimensionelle entre le squelette d'un stérilet et la cavité utérine. Les études effectuées avec le GynéFix permettent également de constater l'absence de complications infectieuses, telle le salpingite, et les grossesses extra-utérines.

Le GynéFix est un nouveau dispositif contraceptif important. En plus d'être bien tolére, bien retenu par l'utérus, sûr et efficace, il est le meilleur choix pour une contraception intra-utérine chez les nulligestes.

Resumen

El CuFix (GyneFix®), ideado en 1985, se desarrolló para minimizar tres de los problema más importantes asociados con mayor frecuencia a la discontinuación del uso de un DIU: expulsión, sangrado y dolor. Desde que se iniciaron los primeros estidios clinicos, se han recogido unos 10.000 años-mujer de uso y hasta 8 años de seguimiento en ensayos clinicos internacionales, multicentricos, comparativos y no-comparativis, incluyendo una gran proporción de mujeros nuliparas-nulligrávidas. Se discuto en este articulo la importancia clinica sibre el GyneFix en los estudios multicéntricos, realizados en mujeres nuliparasnulligrávidas y mujere multiparas.

Se ha llegado a las siguientes conclusiones:

  • - Las caracteristicas de diseño del GyneFix (sin estructura rigida, flexible y figado a fundus uterino) han contribuido par conseguir una tolerancia optima con una ausencia casi total de expulsiones. Como consecuenci existe un aumento de la eficia (comparado con los anticonceptivos orales y esterilización masculina/feminina) y una elevada tasa de continuación de uso. El GyneFix disminuye la tasa de fallos del DIU al minimo y por tanto es un método contraceptivo que supone una excelente alternativa a los contraceptivos orales y la contracepción quirúrgica.

  • - La ausencia de estructura rigida y la flexibilidad explicarian la auscencia de efectos secundarios y reacciones adveras provocadas por la incompatibilidad dimensional entre los DIUs de estructura rigida y la cavidad uterina, y tambien podia explica la auscencia de Enfermedad Inflamatoria Pévica y embarzos ectópicos en todos los estudios clinicos.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wildemeersch D, Van der Pas H, Thiery M, Van Kets H, Parewijck W. The Copper-Fix (CuFix): a new concept in IUD technology. Adv Contracept. 1988;4:197–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hasson HM. Clinical studies of the Wing Sound II metrology device. In: Zatuchini GI, Goldsmith A, Sciarra JJ, eds. Intrauterine contraception: advances and future prospects: Harper & Row, 1984:126–41.

  3. Kurz KH. Cavimeter uterine measurement and IUD clinical correlation. In: Zatuchini GI, Goldsmith A, Sciarra JJ, eds. Intrauterine contraception: advances and future prospects. Philadelphia: Harper & Row; 1984;142–62.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Coppens M., Thiery M, Delbarge W, Van der Pas H, Van Ket H. The copper-fix IUD: assessment of tissue reaction at anchor site. Med Sci Res. 1989;17:719.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Parawijck, W, Wildemeersch D, Thiery M, Van der Pas H, Van Kets H, Delbarge W. The FlexiGard (CuFix): updated experience. Presentation at the World Congress on Human Reproduction, Helsinki, 1990.

  6. Batar I. One-year clinical experience with FlexiGard. Contraception. 1992;46:307–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wildemeersch D, Defoort P, Martens G. The FlexiGard 330 ICC, an ultrasound evaluation. Contraception. 1992;46:471–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wildemeersch D, Van Kets H, Van der Pas H, Vrijems M, Van Trappen Y, Amy JJ, Batar I, Barri P, Martinez F, Iglesias-Cortit L, Thiery M. IUD tolerance in nulligravid and parous women: optimal acceptance with the frameless CuFix implant system. Br J Fam Plann. 1994;20:2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Van Kets H, Wildemeersch D, Van der Pas M, Van Trappen Y, Amy JJ, Batar I, Barri P, Martinez F, Iglesias-Cortit L, Shangchun W, Xiaoming C, Zuan-chong F, Thiery M. IUD expulsion solved with implant technology. Contraction. 1995;51:87–92.

    Google Scholar 

  10. WHO Comparatiive Study CuFix (Flexigard)/TCu380A. Interim report, 1993.

  11. Van Kets H. The CuFix (GyneFix) intrauterine copper contraceptive: a significant advance in longerm reversible contraception. Presented at the Third Congress of the European Society of Contraception, Dublin, 1994.

  12. Thiery M. Pain relief at insertion and removal of an IUD: a simplified technique for paracervical block. Adv Contracept. 1985;1:167–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tietze C, Lewit S. Recommended procedures for the statistical evaluation of intra-uterine contraception (1973). Stud Fam Plann. 1973;4:35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Saure A, Hirvonen E, Kivijärvi A, Timonen H. Comparative performance of Fincoidl, Nova-T, and Multiload 375 IUDs. In: Zatuchni GI, Goldsmith A, Sciarra JJ, eds. Intrauterine contraception: advances and future prospects. Philadelphia: Harper & Row, 1984:104–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hirvonen E, Kaivola S. A new copper IUD (Fincoid) in adolescent and young nulliparous women. Contracept Deliv Syst. 1983;4:149–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. UNFPA Project Report. Study of stainless steel ring and Copper T IUD. Efficacy, use, cost/benefit and conversion in China. UNFPA Project CPR/91/P43. 1992;1–53.

  17. Van Kets H. Clinical performance of intrauterine devices (dissertation). Faculty of Medicine, State University of Gent, Belgium, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Atrash HK, Frye A, Hogue CJR. Incidence of morbidity and mortality with IUD in situ in the 1980s and 1990s. A new look at IUDs — advancing contraceptive choices. IUD Conference, New York. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. 1994;76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  19. WHO Scientific Group, eds. Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine device. World Health Organization Technical Report Series No. 753, 1987.

  20. Lee NC, Rubin GL, Borucki R. The intrauterine device and pelvic inflammatory disease revisited: new results from the Women's Health Study. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;67:1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Family Health International. Use of IUDs in developing coutries. A comparative study. FHI Network. 1991;12:2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Struthers BJ. Copper UIDs, and fertility in nulliparous women. Adv Contracept. 1991;7:211–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Diaz J, Mendes Pinto Neto A, Bahamondes L, Diaz M, Espejo Arce X, Castro S. Performance of the Copper T 200 in parous adolescents: are copper IUDs suitable for these women? Contraception. 1993;48:23–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaivola S. Postremoval assessment of the intrauterine position of the IUDs: an analysis of 1012 removals with special reference to pregnancy risk and dislocation. Presentation held at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Advancement of Contraception, Singapore, 1990.

  25. Sheppard BL. Endometrial morphological changes in IUD users: a review. Contraception. 1987;36:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pizarro E, Schöenstedt G, Mehech G, Hidalgo M, Romero C, Munos G. Uterine cavity and the location of IUDs following administration of meclofenamic acid to menorrhagic women. Contraception. 1989;40:413–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Thiery M, Van der Pas H, Van Kets H. A decade of experience with the TCu220C. Adv Contracept. 1989;1:313–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Thiery M, Van der Pas H, Van Kets H.. The MLCu375 IUD. Adv Contracept. (1985);1:37–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. UNDP, UFPA, World Bank, WHO, Special Programme of Research, Development and Training in Human Reproduction: IUD Research Group. The TCu380A and the frameless IUD—the FlexiGard: interim three year data from an international multicentre trial. Contraception. 1995; (suebmitted).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Kets, H., Vrijens, M., van Trappen, Y. et al. The frameless GyneFix® intrauterine implant: A major improvement in efficacy, expulsion and tolerance. Adv Contracept 11, 131–142 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01987278

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01987278

Keywords

Navigation