Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Although the defined success rate needed for continuation of the investigation was met, due to the overall low success rate; it was considered, particularly considering the ongoing pandemic, to discontinue the investigation prematurely.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Karolinska University Hospital | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The safety and efficacy of a subdermal implant retrieval device (RemovAid) is investigated in a population of 25 women seeking removal of their palpable contraceptive implants.
The primary endpoint of the device is to evaluate the performance of the device, specifically its success rate in removing palpable contraceptive implants. The device shall be able to fixate at least 80% of palpable implants, and successfully remove at least 90% of these implants.
Similar to the REVALID and REVALID02 investigations, the REVALID03 investigation aims to recruit a total of 25 women with a palpable contraceptive implant due for removal, in order to obtain at least 20 successful fixations.
The implant retrieval device aims to standardize and simplify the implant removal procedure. There is no comparator in the investigation. Descriptive data will be recorded, all recruited subjects will be exposed to the investigational medical device (IMD) The primary endpoint is the percentage of fixated implants that are successfully removed without the use of additional tools.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| RemovAid arm | Experimental | RemovAid arm - All subjects have their implant removed by the RemovAid device |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RemovAid | Device | The RemovAid device is used for removal |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Successful removal of implant | The percentage of fixated implants that are successfully removed by the device without the use of additional tools | 15 minutes |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency, severity, causality and outcome of adverse events (AEs) | Both Anticipated and unanticipated AEs will be recorded, both immediately following the intervention and at follow-up | 1 week |
| Pain during procedure: Visual Analogue Scale |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson, MD, PhD | Karolinska Institutet | Principal Investigator |
| 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. | |
| 20705152 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Mean pain score (maximum pain intensity during the procedure) indicated by the subject on a Visual Analogue Scale 0-100 mm ruler, assuming that anaesthesia has been properly administered. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
| 15 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. 80% or more is considered success. | 5 minutes |
| Duration of procedure | Mean time from making incision until implant is removed, and first touching subject with the device until implant extracted | 25 minutes |
| Technical functionality of device determined by an operators questionnaire | Fulfilment of pre-defined technical requirements, as documented on an operator functionality questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of a range of yes/no questions to device functionality | 5 minutes |
| Operators impression of the device | The operator's global impression of the IMD will be assessed using a scale 1-5, where 5 is excellent and 1= poor | 5 minutes |
| Subject satisfaction: 5- point scale | The subject's global assessment of satisfaction with the procedure will be assessed using a scale of 1-5, where 5 is excellent | 5 minutes |
| 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. |