Performance of the frameless GyneFix and the TCu380A IUDs in a 3-year multicenter, randomized, comparative trial in parous women. Randomised controlled trial assessing the acceptability of GyneFix versus Gyne-T380S for emergency contraception. Performance of the TCu380A and Cu-Fix IUDs in an international randomized trail. The TCu 380A IUD and the frameless IUD "the FlexiGard": interim three-year data from an international multicenter trial. UNDP, UNFPA, and WHO Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, World Bank: IUD Research Group.
This study was conducted to evaluate a new and improved inserter (GyneFix) for the anchoring of the Frameless IUD in the uterine cavity. Previous studies conducted with a prototype inserter (Flexigard) did not show fully the advantages of the new anchoring concept because of the shortcomings of the Flexigard inserter and the complexity of the insertion technique. The GyneFix IUD was compared with the TCu380A IUD in six centers in China in approximately 300 women in each group. Only parous women were included in the study. The data from this 3-year, ongoing study demonstrate that the shortcomings of the inserter have been corrected, resulting in better performance and a much reduced rate of failed insertion/expulsion of the frameless and anchored device. The cumulative expulsion rate with the GyneFix IUD was 3.0 at 3 years (annual rates 2.67, 0.33, and 0.0, respectively) compared with a cumulative expulsion rate of 7.38 at 3 years with TCu380A (annual rates 4.63, 1.76, and 1.04, respectively). This difference is statistically significant. The majority of the expulsions with the anchored IUD occurred early in the study, indicating improper anchoring technique. The study also shows that both devices are highly efficacious. No pregnancies occurred with the GyneFix IUD (cumulative pregnancy rate 0.0 at 3 years) versus one pregnancy with TCu380A (cumulative pregnancy rate 0.34 at 3 years). The total use-related discontinuation rate at 3 years was significantly lower with the GyneFix IUD (8.34) than with the TCu380A IUD (14.13) and results in a higher rate of continuation with the GyneFix IUD compared to the TCu380A IUD (90.73 vs 85.25). Neither perforations nor pelvic inflammatory disease cases were encountered with either device in this study, demonstrating the safety of the anchoring system. To assess insertion-linked pain and the short-term user-acceptability and safety of the GyneFix as compared with T-framed intrauterine devices (IUDs).
                A randomised controlled trial in an outpatient clinic setting.
                Women requesting an IUD for emergency contraception (EC) were allocated to either the short-term arm (GyneFix versus Nova-T200, or the long-term arm (GyneFix versus Gyne-T380S, and then randomised within each group. Visual analogue scores were used to assess the women's perception of the pain associated with insertion, which was patient-blinded. Follow-up was double-blinded, at 6 weeks, with bleeding and pain recorded over this time.
                A total of 175 women received an IUD in the long-term arm. The short-term arm was discontinued due to low recruitment (17 women at 20 months) and therefore the results relate to the long-term arm only. Outcome was known in 98% of subjects. The actual insertion procedure was scored as more painful for the GyneFix, both by the women (p = 0.013) and the doctors making their assessment of the women's pain (p = 0.04). The women with GyneFix described less pain in the subsequent 30 days after insertion (p = 0.005). Only 13% of women with GyneFix requested removal as compared with 20% with Gyne-T380S, with the difference being attributed to removal due to pain. The bleeding pattern was similar for those using GyneFix and Gyne-T380S.
                Our study suggests that although the actual fitting may be more painful, pain is less during the 6 weeks after insertion of GyneFix and fewer women discontinue its use because of pain, as compared with Gyne-T380S. The high overall continuation rate of all emergency IUDs at 6 weeks and low morbidity seen in this study favours more frequent IUD insertion where unprotected intercourse has occurred, given also its higher efficacy over oral hormonal EC. To compare the clinical performance of the TCu380A, the most widely used copper IUD in the world today, and a new frameless device, the Cu-Fix, we report results from a randomized international two-year clinical trial involving 874 parous women followed for an average of fourteen months. Event rates at the end of two years (per 100 women) for pregnancy were 0.0 for the TCu380A and 1.5 for the Cu-Fix. Termination due to expulsion was significantly less for TCu380A as compared with Cu-Fix users (2.0 and 11.4 per hundred women, respectively); other medical reasons for termination (bleeding/pain, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), and other) did not differ significantly. PID incidence rates at two years were 1.0 per hundred women for the TCu380A and 1.6 for the Cu-Fix (equivalent to 6.0 and 8.3 per 1,000 woman-years, respectively). The net cumulative continuation rates at two years per hundred women were 78.8 for TCu380A, and 71.9 for the Cu-Fix. Both IUDs provide highly effective protection against pregnancy, but the TCu380A has a lower expulsion rate. The low rate of PID indicates that it is an in-frequent occurrence in appropriately selected candidates. The TCu 380A and FlexiGard IUDs were compared in a randomized multicenter trial including 28 institutes in 13 countries. There were 53 insertion failures with the FlexiGard and one with the TCu 380A. There were 2184 successful insertions of the TCu380A and 2102 of the FlexiGard device. The three-year pregnancy rates for the TCu 380A and FlexiGard were similar (1.6 and 1.9 per 100 women, respectively) but the FlexiGard three-year expulsion rate (7.4 per 100 women) was significantly higher than that of the TCu 380A (4.4 per 100 women). The insertion technique for the FlexiGard needs to be improved in order to lower the expulsion rate.
There is insufficient data to show that problems of early expulsions have been overcome with the modified introducer used in GyneFix. Apart from that, the frameless device performs similarly to TCu380, and appears to have a lower pregnancy rate in later years, although the absolute difference is small.