Introduction of the GyneFix intra-uterine device into the UK: Client satisfaction survey and casenotes review

Objective. To assess the first year's use with the GyneFix intra-uterine de vice. This has been used in Liverpool since early 1997. It is offered mainl y to nulliparous women wishing to use an effective non-hormonal method and parous women who have had pain with, or expulsion of, a framed device previ ously. It is also used as emergency, contraception. Design. Retrospective study, by, means of casenote review and client questi onnaire. Participants. All GyneFix users from February, 1997 to January,1998; 215 wo men in total. Main outcome measures. Data were extracted from casenotes to determine reas ons for choice of GyneFix, parity, whether the insertion was planned or as an emergency, measure, problems reported at follow-up and reasons for remov al. Users were asked by, questionnaire to comment on insertion procedure, m enstrual or other changes since insertion and to state their overall satisf action. Results. Over half of the users (57%) were nulliparous and a quarter of ins ertions were for emergency, contraceptive use. A third reported that insert ion was 'very painful'. Half reported that their periods had become heavier since insertion, but only, 8% said that they, it-ere now unmanageable. Una cceptable bleeding was the most common reason for removal. Some reported in termenstrual bleeding and dysmenorrhoea. Satisfaction with the GyneFix was high; 86% of questionnaire responders said that they, would recommend it to a friend. Conclusion. The GyneFix is well accepted in Liverpool in appropriately, sel ected clients, and is an effective nonhormonal method for nulliparous as we ll as parous women.