Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Minor design modifications to device to be investigated in new trial
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Karolinska University Hospital | OTHER |
| Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation | OTHER |
| The Research Council of Norway | OTHER |
| Amano Clinical Consulting AB |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
There are no implant removal devices on the market by any manufacturer. New features are described in comparison with the existing removal technique. Overall, the RemovAidâ„¢ combines the features of fixation, incision and extraction. This combination of functions has not previously been combined in a single device.
The investigators wish to perform this pilot clinical investigation with the aim to demonstrate that the Investigational Medical Device (IMD), RemovAid â„¢, may safely and effectively facilitate implant removal. Other aims are to show that the IMD have the potential to reduce procedure length variability, reduce procedural complexity and reduce the need for additional procedural equipment related to CI removal procedures, without causing any harm to the subject.
Contraceptive Implants (CIs) were introduced to the commercial market in the early 1980s. They are advocated as a safe and effective method of contraception, and are included on the WHO's Essential Medicines list.
CI manufacturers have focused intense efforts on making insertion of CIs easier, but have largely left CI removals untouched and at the mercy of the various service providers. Different introducers and trocars are available for use with the different CI systems available internationally, and a second generation, single-use trocar is supplied with the Nexplanon® implant system available in Sweden. This second generation trocar has reduced the number of misplaced or deeply inserted CIs, and underlines the benefits of standardizing minor surgical procedures through the use of dedicated medical devices.
The CI removal procedure recommendations have remained essentially unchanged for 40 years, relying on scalpels, forceps and general surgical skills from the service provider. Currently, no standardized technique for removal of CIs exists, and no dedicated CI removal device is found on the commercial market.
Removal of palpable subdermal implants is generally a simple, minor surgical office procedure. However, the procedure for implant removal requires more training and skill than the procedure for insertion. There is a risk of slippage of the scalpel blade or a sudden movement by the client causing inadvertent deeper penetration, in which case any underlying structure could be affected.
Mean removal times, from time of incision until removal of the rod, are consistently reported as less than four minutes, however with ranges from 0.2 - 60 minutes.
Available research shows that the procedure length of the current CI removal procedure is highly variable and reliant on individual operator skills.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| New IMD | Experimental | Subjects with contraceptive implants to be removed, are subjected to the novel device by personnel skilled in traditional removal. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New IMD | Device | The contraceptive implants of the subjects in this arm are removed by the new IMD. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Successful removal of implant | Percentage of fixated implants that were successfully removed without the use of additional tools. | 5 minutes |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency, severity, causality and outcome of adverse events (AEs) | Frequency and severity of sharps injury, nerve damage, blood vessel damage, tissue damage, wound infection and cytotoxicity during and after the use of the device. Performed by investigation of site at the time of operation and one week later. | 1 week |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Marte Bratlie, MD | RemovAid AS | Study Chair |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karolinska University Hospital | Stockholm | 17176 | Sweden |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22996129 | Background | Committee on Adolescent Health Care Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 539: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Oct;120(4):983-8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182723b7d. | |
| Background | World Health Organization. 2014 [cited April 23rd.]; Available from: http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/en/ | ||
| 20705152 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Pain during procedure |
Mean pain score (maximum pain intensity during the procedure) indicated by the subject on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) 0-100 mm ruler, assuming that anaesthesia has been properly administered. |
| 5 minutes |
| Success of fixation of implant | Percentage of palpable implants where the implant could be seen and/or felt on both sides of the clamp after maximum three attempts of fixation. | 5 minutes |
| Duration of procedure | Mean time from
| 25 minutes |
| Technical functionality of device determined by an operators questionnaire. | Fulfilment of pre-defined technical requirements, as documented on an operator functionality questionnaire. | 5 minutes |
| Operators impression of the device | The operator's global impression of the IMD will be assessed using a 5-point scale. | 5 minutes |
| Subject satisfaction | The subject's global assessment of satisfaction with the procedure will be assessed using a 5- point scale. | 5 minutes |
| Background |
| Mansour D, Mommers E, Teede H, Sollie-Eriksen B, Graesslin O, Ahrendt HJ, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Clinician satisfaction and insertion characteristics of a new applicator to insert radiopaque Implanon: an open-label, noncontrolled, multicenter trial. Contraception. 2010 Sep;82(3):243-9. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.04.007. Epub 2010 May 18. |
| 22939402 | Background | Mommers E, Blum GF, Gent TG, Peters KP, Sordal TS, Marintcheva-Petrova M. Nexplanon, a radiopaque etonogestrel implant in combination with a next-generation applicator: 3-year results of a noncomparative multicenter trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;207(5):388.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.08.002. Epub 2012 Aug 10. |
| 16857083 | Background | Webb AM. Why go to Tiger Country? A report of two cases of Implanon removal. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2006 Jul;32(3):193-4. doi: 10.1783/147118906777888233. No abstract available. |
| 18929739 | Background | Levine JP, Sinofsky FE, Christ MF; Implanon US Study Group. Assessment of Implanon insertion and removal. Contraception. 2008 Nov;78(5):409-17. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.06.016. Epub 2008 Sep 18. |
| 15854630 | Background | Funk S, Miller MM, Mishell DR Jr, Archer DF, Poindexter A, Schmidt J, Zampaglione E; Implanon US Study Group. Safety and efficacy of Implanon, a single-rod implantable contraceptive containing etonogestrel. Contraception. 2005 May;71(5):319-26. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2004.11.007. |