CClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT02986971Updated Nov 21, 2017

Removal of Palpable Subdermal Contraceptive Rod Implants.

An interventional study of New IMD in Removal of Contraceptive Implant, sponsored by RemovAid AS. Terminated at 1 site in Sweden. Open to female participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-11-21.

Sponsored by RemovAid AS · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research

Why this study was terminated
Minor design modifications to device to be investigated in new trial
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
22
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

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 RemovAid™ 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 ™, 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.

Read the detailed description

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Removal of Contraceptive Implant

Keywords

  • Contraceptive implant
03

In context

Lead sponsor

RemovAid AS is the lead sponsor of 4 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Female age 18 or older
  • Willing to remove a palpable subdermal Implanon/ Neplanon CI
  • Willing and able to give written informed consent for participation in the investigation
  • Willing to provide follow-up information according to the Clinical Investigators Brouchure

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Known allergy to local anaesthetic (lidocaine/lignocaine) or disinfectant (chlorhexidine).
  • Active skin lesion over the CI.
  • The Investigator considers the subject unlikely to comply with investigational procedures, restrictions and requirements.
  • Any contraindication for removal of the PI, as judged by the Investigator.
  • Any disorders or medications that might affect coagulation, as judged by the Investigator.
  • Any conditions suspected to affect healing or increase risk of infection (e.g. keloid tendency, diabetes or any upper arm dermatological condition that may affect upper arm healing).
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
22 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    New IMD

    Subjects with contraceptive implants to be removed, are subjected to the novel device by personnel skilled in traditional removal.

    Device: New IMD

Interventions

  • DeviceNew IMD

    The contraceptive implants of the subjects in this arm are removed by the new IMD.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Successful removal of implant

    Percentage of fixated implants that were successfully removed without the use of additional tools.

    Time frame: 5 minutes

Secondary outcomes

  1. 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.

    Time frame: 1 week

  2. 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.

    Time frame: 5 minutes

  3. 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.

    Time frame: 5 minutes

  4. Duration of procedure

    Mean time from 1. making incision until implant is removed. 2. first handling the device until closing the wound.

    Time frame: 25 minutes

  5. Technical functionality of device determined by an operators questionnaire.

    Fulfilment of pre-defined technical requirements, as documented on an operator functionality questionnaire.

    Time frame: 5 minutes

  6. Operators impression of the device

    The operator's global impression of the IMD will be assessed using a 5-point scale.

    Time frame: 5 minutes

  7. Subject satisfaction

    The subject's global assessment of satisfaction with the procedure will be assessed using a 5- point scale.

    Time frame: 5 minutes

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Karolinska University Hospital
    Stockholm, 17176, Sweden
08

References and documents

Publications

  • 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. PubMed 22996129 ↗
  • World Health Organization. 2014 [cited April 23rd.]; Available from: http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/en/
  • 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. PubMed 20705152 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 22939402 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 16857083 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 18929739 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 15854630 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 21, 2017, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02986971
Lead sponsor
RemovAid AS
Collaborators
Karolinska University Hospital, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Research Council of Norway, Amano Clinical Consulting AB
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Dec 8, 2016
Start date
Jan 11, 2017
Primary completion
May 19, 2017
Completion
Sep 15, 2017
Last update
Nov 21, 2017

Study contacts

Marte Bratlie, MD
study chair · RemovAid AS

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Dec 2016. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion