American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Implants and Intrauterine Devices. ACOG Practices Bulletin no 121. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC; 2011. Accessed August 5, 2017.Google Scholar

Heartwell, SF, Schlesselman, S. Risk of uterine perforation among users of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61(1):31–36.Google ScholarPubMed

Peri, N, Graham, D, Levine, D. Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 2007;26:1389–1401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Boortz, HE, Margolis, DJ, Ragavendra, N, Patel, MK, Kadell, BM, Migration of intrauterine devices: radiologic findings and implications for patient care. RadioGraphics 2012; 32(2):335–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Benacerraf, BR, Shipp, TD, Bromley, B. Three dimensional ultrasound detection of abnormally located intrauterine contraceptive devices which are a source of pelvic pain and abnormal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:110–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nowitzki, KM, Hoimes, ML, Chen, B, Zheng, LZ, Kim, YH. Ultrasonography of intrauterine devices. Ultrasonography 2015;34(3):183–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Madden, T, McNicholas, C, Zhao, Q et al. Association of age and parity with intrauterine device expulsion. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124(4):718–726.Google Scholar

Uçar, MG, Şanlıkan, F, Ilhan, TT, Göçmen, A, Çelik, Ç. Management of intra-abdominally translocated contraceptive devices, is surgery the only way to treat this problem? J Obstet Gynaecol 2017 May;37(4):480–486.Google Scholar

World Health Organization: Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Report of a WHO scientific group. Technical Report Series 753. Geneva, WHO Health Organization, 1987, p. 1–91.[9]Google Scholar

Heinemann, K, Reed, S, Moehner, S, Do Minh, T. Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel – releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices. Contraception 2015;91:274–279.Google Scholar

Phillips, S, Steyn, P, Temmerman, M. Contraceptive options for women living with HIV. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014;28: 881–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Robinson, JA, Jamshidi, R, Burke, AE. Contraception for the HIV-positive woman: a review of interactions between hormonal contraception and antiretroviral therapy. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2012;2012:1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Amy, JJ, Tripathi, V. Contraception for women: an evidence based overview. BMJ 2009;339:563–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nanda, K, Stuart, G, Robinson, J et al. Drug interactions between hormonal contraceptives and antiretrovirals. AIDS 2017;31:917–952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Curtis, KM, Tepper, NK, Jatlaoui, TC et al. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65:1–103.Google ScholarPubMed

Polis, CB, Curtis, KM. Use of hormonal contraceptives and HIV acquisition in women: a systematic review of the epidemiological evidence. The Lancet 2013;13:797–807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Phillips, SJ, Polis, CB, Curtis, KM. The safety of hormonal contraceptives for women living with HIV and their sexual partners. Contraception 2016;93:11–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Gynecologic care for women and adolescents with human immunodeficiency virus. Practice Bulletin No. 167. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:e89–110.Google Scholar

Bhagavan, BS, Gupta, PK. Genital actinomycosis and intrauterine contraceptive devices. Cytopathologic diagnosis and clinical significance. Hum Pathol 1978;9(5):567–578.Google Scholar

Westhoff, C. IUDs and colonization or infection with Actinomyces. Contraception 2007;75(6 Suppl):S48–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cheung, ANY et al. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer 2003;99(6):331–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kalaichelvan, V, Maw, AA, Singh, K. Actinomyces in cervical smears of women using the intrauterine device in Singapore. Contraception 2006;73(4):352–355.Google Scholar

Merki-Feld, GS et al. The incidence of actinomyces-like organisms in Papanicolaou-stained smears of copper- and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices. Contraception 2000;61(6):365–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Carrillo, M et al. In vitro Actinomyces israelii biofilm development on IUD copper surfaces. Contraception 2010;81(3):261–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Long acting reversible contraceptives: implants and intrauterine devices. Practice Bulletin 121. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:186–194.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical challenges of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Committee Opinion 672. Obstet Gynecol 2016;129:e69–77.Google Scholar

Muller-Holzner, E et al. IUD-associated pelvic actinomycosis: a report of five cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1995;14(1):70–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nugteren, SK et al. Colitis and lower abdominal mass by Actinomyces israelii in a patient with an IUD. Neth J Med 1996;49(2):73–76.Google Scholar

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Venous Thromboembolism: Data & Statistics. 2017. www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/data.html (accessed June 12, 2017.)Google Scholar

Pomp, ER, Lenselink, AM, Rosendaal, FR, Doggen, CJ. Pregnancy, the postpartum period and prothrombotic defects: risk of venous thrombosis in the MEGA study. J Thromb Haemost 2008 April 6;4:632–637.Google Scholar

Heit, JA, Kobbervig, CE, James, AH et al. Trends in the incidence of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy or postpartum: a 30-year population-based study. Ann Intern Med 2005 November 15. 143(10):697–706.Google Scholar

Vandenbroucke, Jan P, Rosing, Jan, Kitty, WM et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1527–1535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lidegaard, O, Lokkegaard, E, Svendsen, AL, Agger, C. Hormonal contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism: national follow-up study. BMJ 2009;339:b2890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Committee on Gynecologic Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion Number 540: risk of venous thromboembolism among users of drospirenone-containing oral contraceptive pills. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1239–1242.Google Scholar

Evidence-Based Medicine Consult. The Mechanism of Oral Contraceptive (Birth Control Pill) Induced Clot or Thrombus Formation (DVT, VTE, PE). 2015. www.ebmconsult.com/articles/oral-contraceptive-clotting-factors-thrombosis-dvt-pe (accessed June 12, 2017).Google Scholar

Curtis, KM, Tepper, NK, Jatlaoui, TC et al. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65(No. RR-3):1–104.Google ScholarPubMed

Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. ACOG Committee Opinion #670, August 2016.Google Scholar

www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contraceptive_serv.html (accessed July 2017)Google Scholar

Trussell, J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 2011;83(5):397–404.Google Scholar

Long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. ACOG Practice Bulletin #121, July 2011.Google Scholar

www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/mmwr/mec/summary.html (accessed July 2017)Google Scholar

Mansour, D, Walling, M, Glenn, D et al. Removal of non-palpable etonogestrel implants. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care April 2014;40:126–132.Google Scholar

Mansour, D. Nexplanon: what Implanon did next. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care October 2010;36:187–189.Google Scholar

Mansour, D, Fraser, IS, Walling, M et al. Methods of accurate localisation of non-palpable subdermal contraceptive implants. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care January 2008;34:9–12.Google Scholar

Brown, M, Britton, J. Neuropathy associated with etonogestrel implant insertion. Contraception November 2012;86:591–593.Google Scholar

Guiahi, M, Tocce, K, Teal, S, Green, T, Rochon, P. Removal of Nexplanon implant located in the biceps muscle using a combination of ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance. Contraception December 2014;90(6):606–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pillai, M, Cazet, AC, Griffiths, M. Continuing need for and provision of a service for non-standard implant removal. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care April 2014;40:126–132.Google Scholar

Chen, M, Creinin, M. Removal of a nonpalpable etonogestrel implant with preprocedure ultrasonography and modified vasectomy clamp. Obstet Gynecol November 2015;126(5):935–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Curtis, KM, Jatlaoui, TC, Tepper, NK et al. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65:1–320.Google ScholarPubMed

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Increasing access to contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Committee Opinion No. 642. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:e44–48.Google Scholar

Charlton, BM, Molgaard-Nielsen, D, Svanstrom, H et al. Maternal use of oral contraceptives and risk of birth defects in Denmark: prospective, nationwide cohort study. BMJ 2016; 352:h6712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Curtis, KM, Tepper, NK, Jatlaoui, TC et al. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65:1–104.Google Scholar

Callahan, R, Yacobson, I, Halpern, V, Nanda, K. Ectopic pregnancy with use of progestin-only injectables and contraceptive implants: a systematic review. Contraception 2015;92:514–522.Google Scholar

Raymond, EG, Waever, MA, Tan, Y et al. Effect of immediate compared with delayed insertion of etonogestrel implants on medical abortion efficacy and repeat pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:306–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Curtis, KM, Tepper, NK, Jatlaoui, TC et al. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65(No.RR-3):1–104.Google Scholar

Scarsi, KK, Darin, KM, Chappell, C et al. Drug-drug interactions, effectiveness, and safety of hormonal contraceptives in women living with HIV. Drug Saf 2016 November;39(11):1053–1072. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Haddad, LB, Tarleton, J, Sheth, AN, Ofotokun, I. Contraception for women living with HIV. In: Allen, RH and Cwiak, CA, eds. Contraception for the Medically Challenging Patient. New York, Springer Science+Business Media. 2014; 93–117.Google Scholar

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Effectiveness of Family Planning Methods. www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf. (Accessed May 1, 2017.)Google Scholar

Phillips, SJ, Polis, CB, Curtis, KM. The safety of hormonal contraceptives for women living with HIV and their sexual partners. Contraception 2016 January;93(1):11–16. Review.Google Scholar

Tepper, NK, Curtis, KM, Nanda, K, Jamieson, DJ. Safety of intrauterine devices among women with HIV: a systematic review. Contraception 2016 December;94(6):713–724. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tepper, NK, Steenland, MW, Garffield, ME et al. Retention of intrauterine devices in women who acquire pelvic inflammatory disease: a systematic review. Contraception 2013 May;87(5):655–660. Review.Google Scholar

Hatcher, RA, Trussel, J, Stewart, FH, et al. Contraceptive Technology, 20th rev ed. New York, Ardent Media, Inc.; 2011, 791–792.Google Scholar

ACOG Committee Opinion no. 592: Sexual assault. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123(4): 905–909.Google Scholar

Black, MC, Basile, KC, Breiding, MJ et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. 2011, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Responding to Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence against Women: WHO Clinical and Policy Guidelines. 2013: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Workowski, KA, and Bolan, GA. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015. MMWR Recomm Rep 2015;64(Rr-03):1–137.Google Scholar

Ford, N, Mayer, KH. World health organization guidelines on postexposure prophylaxis for HIV: recommendations for a public health Approach. Clin Infect Dis 2015;60 Suppl 3: S161–S164.Google Scholar

Meites, E, Kempe, A, and Markowitz, LE. Use of a 2-Dose schedule for human papillomavirus vaccination – updated recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65(49):1405–1408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Curtis, KM, Tepper, NK, Jatlaoui, TC et al. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65(No 3):1–103.Google Scholar

Dehlendorf, C, Grumback, K, Schmittdiel, JA et al. Shared decision making in contraceptive counseling. Contraception 2017;95:452–455.Google Scholar

Society of Family Planning. Contraceptive considerations in obese women. Contraception 2009;80:583–590.Google Scholar

Grimes, DA, Shields, WC. Family planning for obese women: challenges and opportunities. Contraception 2005;72:1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lopez, LM, Bernholc, A, Chen, M et al. Hormonal contraceptives for contraception in overweight or obese women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016, Issue 8. Art No.: CD008452. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008452.pub4.Google Scholar

Dragoman, MV, Simmons, KB, Paulen, ME, Curtis, KM. Combined hormonal contraception (CHC) use among obese women and contraceptive effectiveness: a systematic review. Contraception 2017;95:117–129.Google Scholar

Yamazaki, M, Dwyer, K, Sobhan, M, Davis, D et al. Effect of obesity on the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives: an individual participant data mega-analysis. Contraception 2015;92:445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dragoman, M, Petrie, K, Torgal, A, Thomas, T, Cremers, S, Westhoff, CL. Contraceptive vaginal ring effectiveness is maintained during 6 weeks of use: a prospective study of normal BMI and obese women. Contraception. 2013 Apr;87(4):432–6.Google Scholar