Characteristics of Patients Requiring Surgical Removal of Subdermal Contraceptive Implants: A Case–Control Study

Abstract

Leila Katabi,1 Erica Stevens,1 Mona Ascha,2 Kavita Arora3,4 1Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA; 2Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA; 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, 44109, USA; 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USACorrespondence: Kavita Arora, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, 101 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA, Tel [phone], Email [email protected]: Etonogestrel subdermal implants are a commonly used contraceptive device placed in the medial upper arm. Plastic and orthopedic surgeons may be consulted for difficult implant removals. We performed a case–control study comparing patients undergoing surgical and uncomplicated in-office removal at our institution.Patients and Methods: We identified patients who underwent operative removal of implantable contraceptive devices by plastic or orthopedic surgeons at our institution from January 2014 to October 2019. Patients who underwent uncomplicated office removal during the same time were compared. Demographic and surgical variables were collected, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed with surgical versus outpatient removal as the outcome of interest.Results: A total of 669 patients undergoing etonogestrel subdermal implant removals were identified during the five-year study period, of which thirteen patients required surgical removal (1.9%) and 326 were selected as uncomplicated removal comparisons. There were no significant differences in median (IQR) body mass index (BMI) (31.1 [28.2, 35.2] versus 29.3 [24.0, 35.1], p = 0.19), median (IQR) weight gain since device placement (5 [− 0.6, 14.7] kilograms versus 1.6 [− 1.2, 5.8] kilograms, p = 0.15), or length of time since device insertion (2.3 [0.8, 2.8] years versus 1.0 [0.4, 2.2] years, p = 0.17). Of those who needed surgical removal, the most common indication for implant removal was device expiration (n = 5, 38.5%). Devices placed by OBGYN attendings were less likely to require surgical removal (p = 0.02). Family medicine attendings were more likely to refer patients for surgical removal (p = 0.02). No significant findings were detected on univariate or multivariate regression. Among surgical removals, radiography was the most frequently used imaging modality. Implants were most frequently subdermal (n = 11, 84.6%) though intramuscular placement was also identified (n = 2, 15.4%). Only one patient had residual paresthesia along the length of the incision. No other complications were identified.Conclusion: We did not identify risk factors associated with the difficult removal of etonogestrel subdermal implants. Practitioners should consult upper extremity surgeons if they encounter difficult removals.Keywords: nexplanon, etonogestrel subdermal implant, upper extremity surgery, implantable contraception

Keywords

• nexplanon
• etonogestrel subdermal implant
• upper extremity surgery
• implantable contraception