The Efficacy of MonoplantÂ® and IndoplantÂ® as Contraceptive Methods: A Comparative Study
Objective: To determine the effectiveness, safety, and time of insertion between MonoplantÂ® with IndoplantÂ® to prevent pregnancy.
Methods: Data were collected from November 2015 until May 2016 in Raden Saleh Clinic. A total of 153 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study and were divided into 77 patients who received MonoplantÂ® and 76 patients received IndoplantÂ®. The study period was 6 months.
Results: The data obtained showed no significant difference in the effectiveness of both contraceptive methods. In addition, side effects such as menstrual disorders and weight gain did not differ significantly in those study groups. However, the time of insertion between MonoplantÂ® and IndoplantÂ® was siginificantly different (162.91 + 197.04 + 49.81 seconds versus 44.96 seconds, p<0.001). For complications such as skin irritation, inflammation, there are no differences
between MonoplantÂ® (0.0%) and IndoplantÂ® users (0.0%).
Conclusion: There are no significant differences in efficacy and side effects using MonoplantÂ® and IndoplantÂ® during the 6-month follow-up. However, the insertion time of MonoplantÂ® is shorter compared to IndoplantÂ®â€™s. MonoplantÂ® can be considered for use as contraception with the effectiveness and side effects are almost the same, but with shorter time of insertion compared to Indoplant Â®.
[Indones J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 5-2: 94-98]
Keywords: contraception, implant, indoplantÂ®, monoplantÂ®