Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Cervical cap

The cervical cap is a reusable barrier contraceptive device consisting of a small, flexible cup typically made of rubber or that is inserted into the to fit snugly over the , creating a seal that mechanically blocks from entering the , often in conjunction with applied to its rim for added . Unlike larger vaginal barriers such as the , the cervical cap is smaller, requires precise fitting to the individual's dimensions, and can remain in place for up to 48 hours, allowing for multiple acts of intercourse without reapplication. Its effectiveness varies significantly by user parity: randomized controlled trials indicate that the Prentif model achieves pregnancy prevention rates comparable to the diaphragm (approximately 80-94% with typical use), performing better in nulliparous women due to stronger , whereas the FemCap shows reduced in parous women, with typical rates approaching 20-30% in some studies. Historically, cervical cap-like devices trace back centuries under principles of , but modern iterations emerged in the early , with U.S. production from the to before regulatory approval in 1988, though widespread adoption has been limited by fitting requirements, potential for displacement or rare , and discontinued manufacturing of early models like Prentif. As a hormone-free option, it appeals to those seeking non-systemic contraception, yet empirical data underscore its inferiority to intrauterine devices or hormonal methods in real-world prevention, necessitating consistent use and proper insertion for optimal results.

Definition and Terminology

Definition

The cervical cap is a reusable barrier contraceptive comprising a small, cup-shaped structure typically made of or latex-free rubber that adheres tightly over the to physically block from entering the . It functions by creating a mechanical seal via , supplemented by the application of inside the cap to immobilize or kill that may contact the barrier. This method differs from broader vaginal barriers like the , as the cap is smaller, more rigid, and positioned directly on the rather than covering the . Insertion occurs manually into the prior to , with the device remaining in place for a minimum of six hours post-coitus to allow to act fully, though it can be left for up to 48 hours. Proper fit, determined by and , requires , particularly as postpartum changes may render it less suitable for women who have delivered vaginally. The cap's , often resembling a sailor's with a brim for stability, facilitates self-placement after initial training but demands verification of positioning to prevent dislodgement during use. As a non-hormonal option, the cervical cap offers on-demand protection without systemic effects, though its relies on consistent correct use and compatibility with individual . Historical variants have employed materials like rubber or plastic, but modern iterations prioritize biocompatible for durability and hypoallergenicity, with reusability extending over multiple cycles following sterilization.

Historical and Regional Terminology

The earliest documented reference to a device resembling the modern cervical cap appeared in 1838, when gynecologist Frederick Adolphe Wilde described a rubber contraceptive fitted over the , which he termed a Cautchuk Pessarium (rubber ). This term reflected the broader historical use of "pessary" for intravaginal devices, encompassing both supportive and contraceptive applications, though modern usage distinguishes pessaries primarily for pelvic support from barrier contraceptives like the cervical cap. By the early 20th century, particularly in and , alternative designations such as "vault cap" and "diaphragm cap" emerged to describe cup-shaped barriers adhering to the or directly to the via suction. Specific variants included the French-originated Dumas vault cap, marketed in and from the 1920s onward as a "Dumas Antigenture" type, and the Prentif cavity rim cap, which emphasized a rim design for retention. An antecedent device, the "womb veil," patented in the United States in 1863 by Edward Bliss Foote, functioned as a rubber occlusive precursor to both cervical caps and diaphragms. In the United States, caps were commercially available from the to under brands like Products' rubber domes and the Surgical Instrument Research Laboratory's "Cervicaps," available in materials such as silver, chrome, and plastic across multiple sizes; sales often employed euphemisms like "" or "marriage hygiene" to circumvent laws restricting open discussion of contraception. Regionally, terminology varies: in the , the device is commonly called a "cap" or "contraceptive cap," as in the NHS designation for the silicone FemCap model. In French-speaking areas, it is known as cap cervicale or cape cervicale, reflecting direct translation and historical European manufacturing influences. The standardized English term "cervical cap" gained prominence post-World War II to differentiate the smaller, cervix-specific device from the larger vaginal , aligning with clinical trials and regulatory approvals in the late 20th century.

Mechanism and Design

Mechanism of Action

The cervical cap operates as a mechanical barrier contraceptive by being inserted into the vagina and fitted snugly over the cervix, where it adheres via suction to cover the cervical os completely and prevent spermatozoa from entering the uterus. The device's rim or groove creates a vacuum seal against the exocervical surface, ensuring physical obstruction of sperm migration through the endocervical canal. Prior to insertion, a spermicidal agent, such as , is applied to the inner dome and rim groove, transforming the cap into a that immobilizes or lyses upon contact, thereby providing a dual mechanical-chemical barrier without altering , fertilization post-barrier breach, or implantation processes. depends on correct placement, which requires the cap to be pushed deep into the until the is centered under the dome, verifiable by touch. Design variations influence suction mechanics: the Prentif cap employs a firm, round rim with a groove for airtight adhesion directly to the , while the FemCap, made of , uses a sailor-hat shape with a vaginal fornix-fitting rim and a peripheral brim for additional wall adherence. The cap must remain for a minimum of six hours after to maximize spermicidal action but should not exceed 48 hours to mitigate risks of bacterial overgrowth or .

Key Design Features

The cervical cap is a small, - or cup-shaped barrier device constructed from soft, flexible or rubber, engineered to fit snugly over the and prevent from entering the . Its compact size, typically measuring about 1.25 inches in length, distinguishes it from larger barriers like the , allowing precise coverage of the alone rather than surrounding vaginal areas. Central to its design is a dome deep enough to fully enclose the , combined with a narrow groove or recessed brim along the inner rim that generates upon insertion, creating a seal against the cervical surface for retention. This enables the cap to adhere reliably, often remaining in place for 48 to 72 hours after fitting. Many models incorporate a short , , or extending from the dome for user-controlled removal, minimizing the risk of accidental dislodgement or during extraction. application to the outer rim is , as the design facilitates accumulation at the edges where the chemical agent immobilizes potential escapees. Variants like the FemCap feature a sailor's profile with a flared brim to enhance stability, particularly for users with changes post-partum, while maintaining the core suction-based adherence. construction predominates in contemporary designs to reduce risks associated with alternatives.

Types and Variants

Cervical caps are distinguished primarily by their material, , and sizing to accommodate anatomical variations. Traditional variants include firm rubber caps, which provide structural rigidity for secure placement, and soft rubber caps, offering greater flexibility but requiring precise fitting by medical professionals to ensure . The Prentif Cavity-Rim Cervical Cap, a latex-based model with a cavity-rim for enhanced against the cervix, was widely used and demonstrated contraceptive effectiveness comparable to the diaphragm in clinical trials conducted in the 1990s, though it was discontinued in the United States by 2003 due to manufacturing challenges. The FemCap represents a contemporary variant, approved by the FDA in , featuring a dome-shaped structure that covers the and extends into the vaginal fornices for improved retention and reduced urethral pressure compared to earlier models. Available in three sizes—22 mm, 26 mm, and 30 mm—it is fitted based on diameter and post-partum status, with the smallest size designated for nulliparous women and larger ones for those who have given birth vaginally. However, studies indicate the FemCap's effectiveness is lower than the , with higher typical-use failure rates reported in comparative trials. Historically, cervical caps evolved from 19th-century prototypes, with early forms made of materials like rubber or metal, but modern usage prioritizes silicone to minimize latex sensitivities prevalent in up to 10% of users. In regions outside the U.S., such as , variants like the vimule cap—a soft, reusable model—continue to be available, though empirical data on their comparative performance remains limited compared to U.S.-approved devices. All variants require application for optimal sperm-blocking action, with designs emphasizing a tight to prevent dislodgement during .

Efficacy and Effectiveness

Empirical Effectiveness Rates

The Prentif cervical cap, one of the most studied variants, exhibited a first-year of 8.4 pregnancies per 100 women in a 1982 multicenter involving consistent users followed via life-table , with 25 pregnancies observed across 3,243 woman-months of exposure; this included 11 method failures and 14 user-related failures such as dislodgement or improper placement. A subsequent Cochrane review of randomized controlled confirmed the Prentif cap's as equivalent to the , reporting non-significant Peto odds ratios for of 1.24 (95% CI 0.89-1.74) across 1,153 participants in a trial spanning 6-42 months, though indicated approximately twice the among parous women (30% relative rate) compared to nulliparous women (15% relative rate). In contrast, the FemCap showed inferior performance in a randomized of 841 women followed for 28 weeks, with a Kaplan-Meier cumulative 6-month ratio of 1.7 versus the and a significant Peto of 1.77 (95% CI 1.02-3.07), yielding no clinical equivalence; did not significantly influence outcomes in this study. Aggregated peer-reviewed estimates place perfect-use failure rates for cervical caps at 10-13% in the first year, reflecting consistent correct application with , while typical-use rates, incorporating inconsistent or erroneous application, range from 17-23%, with higher failures (up to 40% in some parous cohorts) attributed to dislodgement, suboptimal fit, or omitted . These rates derive from Pearl Index calculations in controlled settings and may overestimate real-world efficacy due to toward motivated participants; observational data from private practice settings report similar or slightly higher failures (e.g., 16.9 per 100 woman-years), underscoring the method's sensitivity to user adherence and anatomical factors like shape post-partum. No large-scale contemporary trials post-2000 provide updated empirical benchmarks, as cervical cap use has declined amid alternatives, but historical data consistently highlight lower reliability than hormonal methods while matching other barriers under ideal conditions.

Factors Affecting Efficacy

The efficacy of the cervical cap is highly dependent on accurate fitting by a healthcare provider, as improper size relative to cervical dimensions can lead to inadequate seal and leakage. Clinical studies indicate that the cap must conform precisely to the cervical contours to maintain , with misfitting contributing significantly to method failure rates exceeding 10% in the first year under typical use. User technique plays a critical role, including correct insertion, of placement via or self-examination, and avoidance of . Accidental dislodgement during , particularly vigorous activity, accounts for a substantial portion of failures, as the cap's rim can shift if not securely positioned beforehand. In one analysis of data, dislodgement was identified as the primary mechanical cause of method failure, elevating risk beyond perfect-use estimates of 6-9%. Parity influences outcomes, with parous women experiencing higher failure rates—up to 29% in typical use—due to cervical softening and altered shape post-childbirth, which impairs the cap's retention compared to nulliparous women (around 14% typical failure). Concurrent use of enhances efficacy by immobilizing that may bypass the barrier, and its omission correlates with increased discontinuation and inconsistent application, indirectly raising failure probabilities. Consistency of use differentiates perfect-use efficacy (3-8% first-year failure) from typical-use rates (12-26%), where lapses such as forgetting insertion or inadequate replenishment predominate. The cap's design permits protection for multiple coital acts over without reinsertion, potentially mitigating some user errors if initial placement is correct, unlike methods requiring per-act reapplication.

Comparisons to Other Contraceptive Methods

Versus

The cervical cap and are both reusable barrier contraceptives that require fitting by a healthcare provider and use with to block sperm from reaching the , but they differ in design, placement, and duration of use. The cervical cap is a smaller, thimble-shaped dome (typically 28-32 mm in diameter) that adheres directly to the via , sealing it more precisely, whereas the is a larger, shallower dome (65-85 mm) that domes over the and rests against the vaginal walls and pubic bone for broader coverage. This allows the cervical cap to remain in place for up to 48-72 hours after , compared to the 's recommended maximum of 24 hours, reducing the need for immediate post-coital removal and potentially lowering disruption during extended sexual activity. Both methods fail primarily due to , such as improper insertion, dislodgement, or inconsistent application, with typical-use failure rates ranging from 12-29% annually depending on the device and user . In direct comparisons from randomized controlled trials, the Prentif cervical cap demonstrated pregnancy prevention efficacy comparable to the (cumulative gross pregnancy rates of 11.3% vs. 13.1% at 12 months in one of 311 women), while the FemCap showed lower (17.2% vs. 10.0% at 6 months in a of 330 women), attributed to higher dislodgement rates in nulliparous users. Effectiveness varies by parity: for women who have given birth vaginally (parous), the cervical cap achieves typical-use failure rates of 26% without alone but improves to 14-29% with , outperforming the 's 20% rate in some cohorts due to better cervical fit post-childbirth; nulliparous women, however, experience higher cap failure (up to 29%) from insertion challenges and suction loss. benefits from its larger size, which provides mechanical stability against movement, but requires reapplication of for multiple acts within 6 hours, unlike the cap's sustained seal. User experience and acceptability differ notably, with the cervical cap often rated more comfortable for long-term wear due to its minimal profile and lack of pressure on the or —addressing a common complaint linked to urinary tract infections (UTIs) from compression (incidence 10-20% higher with diaphragms in observational data). However, the cap's smaller size and precise fitting demand greater manual dexterity for and removal, leading to higher discontinuation rates (up to 30% at 12 months vs. 20% for diaphragms) among beginners or those with short fingers. Both carry similar low risks of allergic reactions to or (1-5% incidence), vaginal irritation, or rare if left beyond recommended times, but neither protects against sexually transmitted infections.
AspectCervical CapDiaphragm
Size and PlacementSmall dome on cervix (suction seal)Larger dome over cervix and vagina
Max Wear Time48-72 hours post-intercourse24 hours post-intercourse
Typical Failure Rate (with spermicide)14-29% (lower in parous women)12-20%
UTI RiskLower (less urethral pressure)Higher (from compression)
Insertion DifficultyHigher (precise fit required)Lower (broader coverage)
Data derived from systematic reviews of trials involving over 1,000 participants.

Versus Other Barrier Methods

The cervical cap shares similarities with other barrier methods, including the , , , and , in relying on physical or chemical obstruction of without hormonal interference. However, it differs in requiring professional fitting and typically being used with , while offering reusability for multiple cycles if properly maintained. Unlike condoms, the cervical cap provides no barrier against sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as it covers only the rather than the entire vaginal or penile surface. Efficacy comparisons reveal the cervical cap's typical-use failure rate of about 22% (pregnancies per 100 women in the first year), which is higher than the male condom's 13% but comparable to the contraceptive sponge's 20-32% (varying by parity) and spermicides' 28%. Perfect-use rates improve to 6-9% for nulliparous women using the cap, though they rise to 26% for parous women, reflecting challenges in fit and retention post-childbirth; male condoms achieve 2% perfect-use efficacy regardless of parity. Female condoms have typical-use failure rates around 21%, similar to the cap but with added STI protection due to broader coverage.
MethodTypical-Use Failure RatePerfect-Use Failure RateSTI Protection
22%6-26% (nulliparous to parous)No
Male Condom13%2%Yes
21%5%Yes
20-32% (nulliparous to parous)9-20%No
28%18-19%No
Data derived from aggregated clinical estimates; actual rates vary by user adherence and anatomy. In terms of usability, the cervical cap requires insertion 30-60 minutes prior to and can remain in place up to 48 hours, allowing spontaneity without per-act application, unlike single-use condoms or sponges that demand immediate pre-coital placement and removal within hours. Spermicides alone offer no mechanical barrier, leading to higher displacement risks. However, the cap's insertion demands practice and risks dislodgement (up to 10-15% of cases in studies), potentially exceeding the male condom's simpler rollout method, which has a 1-2% breakage rate but avoids fitting visits. Cost-wise, after initial fitting ($150-300), the cap's reusability (up to 2 years) undercuts ongoing expenses for disposables like condoms ($0.50-2 each) or sponges ($15-20 per unit), though remain cheapest upfront. Side effects are minimal across methods but include allergic reactions to spermicide (common to cap, sponge, and spermicides) and rare risks with prolonged cap or sponge retention.

Versus Hormonal Contraceptives

The cervical cap demonstrates substantially lower compared to hormonal contraceptives. For nulliparous women, perfect use yields approximately 86% , declining to 71% for parous women, while typical use is 71-82% overall, influenced by factors such as correct insertion and application. In contrast, combined oral contraceptives achieve 99% with perfect use and 91% with typical use, owing to their systemic suppression of and endometrial changes, though reliant on consistent adherence.
MethodPerfect Use EffectivenessTypical Use Effectiveness
Cervical Cap71-86%71-82%
Combined Oral Contraceptives99%91%
A primary distinction lies in health risks: the cervical cap avoids systemic hormonal exposure, eliminating elevated risks of (relative risk ~1.2 for current users) and (2- to 4-fold increase with estrogen-containing formulations), which persist even with modern low-dose pills. Hormonal methods, however, provide non-contraceptive benefits, including reduced incidence of ovarian and endometrial cancers (up to 50% lifetime risk reduction with long-term use). The cap's side effects remain localized, such as spermicide-induced vaginal irritation or urinary tract infections (reported in up to 20% of users), without broader metabolic, mood, or disruptions observed in 10-30% of hormonal users. Fertility returns immediately upon discontinuation of the cervical cap, mirroring hormonal methods' reversibility but without potential post-use cycle irregularities from suppression. For women prioritizing avoidance of exogenous hormones—due to contraindications like with aura or personal history of thrombotic events—the cap serves as a viable, user-controlled alternative, albeit demanding manual skill and pre-coital preparation that reduces spontaneity relative to daily or long-acting hormonal options. Neither method protects against sexually transmitted infections.

Usage and Fitting

Professional Fitting Process

The professional fitting process for a cervical cap begins with a consultation between the patient and a healthcare provider, such as a gynecologist or clinician, to review medical and obstetric history. This assessment determines eligibility and selects the appropriate device size, as cervical caps like the FemCap are available in three sizes—Pearl (22 mm) for those never pregnant, Sapphire (26 mm) for those pregnant but without labor, and Emerald (30 mm) for those who have experienced labor—based on rather than custom measurement. Contraindications, including history, significant , or a flat , are evaluated to ensure suitability. A is typically performed using a speculum to visualize the , confirming its size, shape, position, and absence of abnormalities such as lesions or that could impair fit or increase risks like dislodgement. Unlike diaphragms, modern cervical caps like FemCap do not require trial insertion of sample sizes during the visit, as relies on historical criteria rather than direct measurement. The provider then issues a prescription, which is necessary for purchase, and demonstrates proper insertion, removal, and application using a model or instructional tools to verify . Post-fitting, providers counsel on usage guidelines, such as inserting the cap up to 48 hours before and leaving it in place for at least six hours afterward, along with recommendations for screening and use if needed. Refitting is advised after significant anatomical changes, such as , , or weight fluctuations exceeding 10 pounds, typically requiring a repeat 8-10 weeks postpartum. This process ensures the device's efficacy, reported at 96-98% with perfect use, while minimizing complications.

Insertion and Removal Methods

The insertion of a cervical cap begins with thorough using and water to maintain . Approximately one teaspoon of is applied: a small amount inside the dome, spread along the outer rim, and additional in the groove between the rim and dome to enhance contraceptive efficacy. The user then assumes a comfortable position, such as , lying down, or standing with one foot elevated on a low stool, to facilitate access to the . To insert, the are separated with one hand while the cap is folded or squeezed between the thumb and forefinger of the other hand. The folded cap is gently pushed into the with the dome and removal strap facing downward and the longer edge of the brim entering first, advancing it until it seats over the . Proper placement is verified by inserting a finger to feel that the is fully covered by the dome, the rim adheres snugly around the cervical base, and gentle tugging confirms without slippage. The cap can be inserted up to six hours prior to , and practice under professional guidance is recommended to master the technique and ensure consistent correct use. Removal is performed after the cap has remained in place for at least six hours following the last act of intercourse, but no longer than 48 hours total to minimize infection risk. The user squats or lies in a comfortable position, locates the removal strap or rim with the fingers, and presses upward against the dome to break the suction seal. The cap is then gently tilted and pulled out by hooking a finger under the rim or strap, avoiding forceful tugging to prevent discomfort or injury. Post-removal, the cap is washed with mild soap and warm water, inspected for damage such as cracks or tears, air-dried, and stored in a cool, dry place away from extreme temperatures. For subsequent intercourse while the cap remains in situ, additional spermicide is applied without removal using an applicator.

Duration and Maintenance Guidelines

The cervical cap must remain in place for a minimum of six hours after the last act of to allow sufficient time for to immobilize sperm. It can be inserted up to six hours prior to but should not exceed a total wear time of 48 hours from insertion to prevent risks such as or vaginal irritation. Guidelines specify removal within this timeframe, with no use recommended during , unusual , or signs of . After removal, the device requires immediate cleaning to maintain and integrity: wash thoroughly with mild or and water, rinse well under , and allow to air dry completely. Users should inspect the cap before and after each use for tears, holes, or deformities, discarding it if damage is detected. Avoid oil-based products like during cleaning or application, as they can degrade the material. For storage, place the dried cap in its provided plastic case in a cool, dry environment away from extreme temperatures or direct , such as not leaving it in a . Periodic professional refitting is advised, particularly after , weight changes, or cervical procedures, to ensure proper seal. With adherence to these protocols, including repeated washing and exposure, the cap supports a use lifespan of up to two years for models like the FemCap, though some guidelines recommend annual replacement.

Side Effects and Health Risks

Common Side Effects

Vaginal irritation represents the most commonly reported side effect associated with cervical cap use, often resulting from contact with spermicide rather than the device itself. This irritation can manifest as soreness, redness, or discomfort in the vaginal area, affecting a notable portion of users due to the chemical composition of nonoxynol-9 spermicides, which disrupt vaginal mucosa to immobilize sperm. An elevated risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) has been observed among cervical cap users, potentially linked to the device's pressure on the or bacterial introduction during insertion. Clinical observations indicate this occurs more frequently than with non-barrier methods, though exact incidence varies by user and . Allergic reactions to in certain cap models or to spermicide components can cause localized itching, swelling, or , though alternatives mitigate latex sensitivity. Vaginal or abnormal discharge may arise if the cap remains in place beyond the recommended 48 hours, fostering bacterial overgrowth. Large-scale clinical trials report no severe gynecologic complications from routine use, with minor issues like transient discomfort or odor resolving upon discontinuation or proper . User surveys corroborate these findings, emphasizing that side effects are typically self-limiting and less prevalent than with hormonal alternatives.

Serious Health Risks

The primary serious health risk associated with cervical cap use is (TSS), a rare but potentially life-threatening bacterial caused by toxin-producing strains of or , which can proliferate in the vaginal environment if the device is left in place beyond recommended durations. TSS symptoms include sudden high fever exceeding 102°F (38.9°C), sunburn-like rash, muscle aches, vomiting, diarrhea, and , progressing to organ failure if untreated; mortality rates for menstrual-related TSS have historically reached 3-5% with prompt antibiotic therapy. Although no confirmed cases of TSS directly attributable to cervical caps have been widely documented in peer-reviewed literature as of 2023, the risk mirrors that of other intravaginal barrier methods like diaphragms, arising from prolonged moisture and occlusion that foster anaerobic bacterial growth, particularly if inserted during or retained over 48 hours. To mitigate this, manufacturers and health authorities mandate removal within 48 hours maximum, avoidance during menses, and immediate medical attention for prodromal symptoms. Severe cervical or vaginal infections, including exacerbated cervicitis or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in susceptible users, represent another category of serious risks, potentially leading to infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or chronic pelvic pain if bacterial ascension occurs due to microtrauma from insertion/removal or spermicide irritation. Empirical data from clinical evaluations indicate such events are infrequent, with one retrospective study of 130 users reporting no significant infectious complications over 12 months, though contraindications exist for those with prior PID or abnormal Pap smears to prevent aggravation. Rare instances of cervical trauma, such as lacerations or ulcerations during fitting or displacement, have been noted in comparative trials, though incidence appears lower than with diaphragms (odds ratio 0.31 for cap users). Hypersensitivity reactions to the or components (in older models) or can escalate to in sensitized individuals, manifesting as widespread urticaria, , or respiratory distress, though population-level anaphylaxis rates remain below 0.1% based on barrier method data. Users with known allergies are advised against use, and prospective monitoring in trials has shown minimal systemic adverse events overall. Long-term use may correlate with transient abnormal Papanicolaou () smears in some cohorts, potentially masking or mimicking precancerous lesions, necessitating regular ; however, causality is not firmly established and resolves upon discontinuation in reported cases.

Empirical Data on Incidence

In clinical trials, serious health risks such as have not been reported with cervical cap use, despite the theoretical possibility due to extended wear times of up to . A multicenter trial of the cavity-rim cervical cap involving 3,433 women from 1981 to 1988 documented no serious medical or gynecologic complications over extended follow-up. Common adverse events are primarily minor and related to local or device issues. In the same trial, more than 20% of users experienced dislodgment during or after , malodor, or partner discomfort, though these did not lead to discontinuation in most cases. use, required with most caps, contributes to risks like vaginal and urinary tract infections (UTIs), but rates are comparable to other barrier methods. A Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing cervical caps to diaphragms reported infection rates per 100 woman-years for the Prentif cap as follows: vaginitis (29.7), bacterial vaginosis (39.7), candidiasis (39.5), and UTIs (14.8), with no significant differences versus diaphragms. Prentif users showed lower odds of vaginal ulcerations or lacerations (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14–0.71) but higher rates of cervical cytologic changes from Class I to III (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.04–5.11). For the FemCap, a pivotal FDA-reviewed study of 346 women found the following incidence of common events: vaginal candidiasis (18.8%), unspecified vaginitis (9.8%), blood in the device (9.0%), and UTIs (7.5%). Compared to diaphragms, FemCap users had reduced UTI odds (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36–0.95) but increased blood in the device (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.27–4.14), with no differences in Papanicolaou smear abnormalities or other infections. Minor mucosal changes like petechiae (up to 22.6% at 2 weeks) and erythema (up to 7.5%) were noted in smaller fitting studies but resolved without intervention.
Adverse EventIncidence in FemCap Pivotal Study (N=346)Comparison to Diaphragm (OR, 95% CI)
Vaginal 18.8%No significant difference
9.8%No significant difference
Blood in Device9.0%Higher (2.29, 1.27–4.14)
UTI7.5%Lower (0.59, 0.36–0.95)

Acceptability and User Experience

User Satisfaction Surveys

A 1983 study of 76 women fitted with the cervical cap over one year reported 89% satisfaction with the method, though continuation was 51% and users noted issues such as , cramping, and . A 1984 retrospective survey of 56 respondents from 130 fitted users, primarily young and highly motivated women, found 84% satisfaction and a 75% continuation rate for at least three months, with no major health risks but occasional dislodgement contributing to inconsistent use. In a 1986 prospective study of 516 follow-up users from 617 fitted, many expressed high satisfaction, attributing it to the device's non-hormonal profile, yet acceptability was tempered by frequent reports of dislodgement, user or partner discomfort, insertion/removal challenges, and . Larger comparative trials highlighted practical barriers to sustained satisfaction. The 1986 Bernstein trial of the Prentif cap (1,153 analyzed women) showed higher discontinuation than the diaphragm due to effectiveness concerns (6-month rate ratio 3.0), though method dislike was less common (rate ratio 0.3); completion rates were 34% for the cap versus 28% for the diaphragm. The 1999 Mauck trial of the FemCap (748 analyzed) reported 37% discontinuation versus 29% for the diaphragm (6-month rate ratio 1.2, not significant), with cap users less likely to continue post-trial (odds ratio 0.47) or recommend it (odds ratio 0.48), primarily citing dislodgement (31% versus 6%, odds ratio 5.46) and removal difficulties (odds ratio 3.14). A 2002 short-term study of the Oves cap involving 20 women across 84 uses found initial difficulties with fitting (50% in first three uses) and removal (60% in first three, nearly 50% later), leading few participants to express interest in future use despite satisfaction with alternative methods. These findings, drawn from peer-reviewed trials, indicate initial satisfaction often exceeds 80% in smaller, motivated cohorts but declines with real-world challenges like fit and maintenance, with limited recent large-scale surveys reflecting the method's niche adoption.

Discontinuation Reasons

Discontinuation of the cervical cap often stems from method-related failures, including and device dislodgement during . In a clinical study of 499 women using the Prentif cervical cap exclusively in private practice, accounted for a gross discontinuation rate of 19.1 per 100 women, while dislodgement contributed 12.9 per 100, marking these as the primary reasons for cessation over a one-year period. These failures highlight challenges in maintaining proper fit and under varying anatomical conditions or . User dissatisfaction drives a substantial portion of discontinuations, with rates exceeding those of many other barrier methods. Among women relying on reversible contraception, the cervical cap exhibited one of the highest proportions of dissatisfaction-related discontinuations at 52%, attributed to factors such as insertion difficulties, discomfort, and perceived messiness from required spermicide application. Overall, approximately 46% of users reported ever discontinuing a method due to dissatisfaction, with cervical caps correlating strongly with complaints over ease of use and reliability compared to alternatives like oral contraceptives. Anatomical changes, particularly postpartum cervical alterations, frequently necessitate discontinuation due to compromised fit. Prentif cap users experienced a six-month cumulative discontinuation rate from cervical changes 1.8 times higher than diaphragm users in comparative trials, as the cap's smaller size and reliance on precise cervical conformity amplify sensitivity to such shifts. Spermicide-associated irritation or allergic reactions further contribute, though less dominantly, prompting switches to non-spermicide-dependent options. General discontinuation rates for the cap hover around 27% within the first year, aligning with barrier method trends but underscoring the need for user dexterity and consistent application.

Demographic and Cultural Factors

The cap's suitability and adoption vary significantly by , with substantially higher effectiveness among nulliparous women (perfect use of 9% per year) compared to parous women (26% per year), due to anatomical fit challenges post-childbirth such as cervical lengthening and softening. This demographic factor leads clinicians to recommend the device primarily for women who have not given birth, limiting its appeal and use among mothers who comprise the majority of reproductive-age women seeking contraception. Socioeconomic status influences selection of barrier methods like the cervical cap, with higher-income and more educated women more likely to opt for them over hormonal alternatives, often prioritizing non-systemic options amid concerns over side effects. However, overall remains low across income levels—estimated at under 1% in surveys—due to requirements for professional fitting, upfront costs (around $90 for the device plus clinic visits), and expenses, which deter low-income users despite coverage in some U.S. states since the 1980s. Cultural factors shape acceptability, particularly in contexts emphasizing female autonomy; during the 1970s-1980s U.S. feminist health movement, the cap gained niche support as a user-controlled, hormone-free alternative to the pill and IUD, aligning with self-examination practices promoted in texts like . Ethnic variations appear in clinic preferences, with non-Asian women in a 1990 California study showing lower favorability for the cap (13%) compared to oral contraceptives (50%), potentially reflecting broader cultural norms around method invasiveness or partner involvement. In conservative or taboo-laden settings, self-insertion may reduce uptake due to discomfort with genital manipulation, though empirical data on non-Western cultures is limited, with adoption near-zero in surveys from regions like where modern barrier methods register under 1%.

Historical Development

Ancient and Early Uses

The earliest documented precursors to the cervical cap appear in ancient medical texts dating to approximately 1850 BCE, where women inserted vaginal pessaries composed of dung mixed with or fermented gum to occlude the and provide a spermicidal barrier against entry into the . These disposable devices relied on the acidic properties of gum, which contains compounds similar to modern spermicides, for additional contraceptive efficacy, though their primary mechanism was mechanical blockage. In the Greco-Roman era, the physician Soranus of Ephesus (c. 98–138 CE) detailed a comparable method in his treatise On Midwifery and the Diseases of Women, recommending the insertion of a wool or linen block saturated with acidic substances such as honey, vinegar, gum, myrtle juice, pomegranate, or cedar oil to cover and seal the cervical os, thereby preventing conception by impeding sperm passage. Soranus emphasized the device's fit against the cervix for effective occlusion, distinguishing it from broader vaginal barriers, and advised its use post-coitally or as a preventive measure, reflecting an empirical understanding of cervical anatomy despite limited materials available. Similar practices persisted across cultures into early modern periods; for instance, ancient traditions involved plugs of rock salt blended with to block the , while in 18th-century , recorded his female companions employing halved rinds—hollowed out and positioned over the —as an acidic, occlusive barrier, leveraging the fruit's for spermicidal effects alongside mechanical coverage. These organic, non-reusable approximations to the cervical cap demonstrate a consistent historical focus on cervical-specific barriers, though efficacy varied due to inconsistent fitting and material degradation, with no quantitative data on success rates from these eras.

19th Century Innovations

The modern cervical cap was first described in by gynecologist Friedrich Wilde, who crafted custom rubber pessaries, known as Cautchuk Pessaria, by molding softened rubber directly to patients' cervixes for a tight seal over the cervical os to block spermatozoa. These devices represented a shift from earlier, less reliable occlusive methods, leveraging emerging rubber technology for improved durability and fit, though precise efficacy data from the era is absent. Wilde's innovation built on traditional practices, such as disks, but introduced scalable production potential via rubber, predating widespread . The 1839 discovery of vulcanization by American inventor , patented in 1844, enabled harder, more elastic rubber that resisted degradation, facilitating further refinements in cervical cap design throughout the mid-1800s. Multiple variants of rubber caps emerged in and the , often requiring physician measurement for sizes ranging from 1 to 3 centimeters in diameter, with insertion via applicators or fingers to ensure adhesion via suction and sometimes cocoa butter as a . These innovations prioritized mechanical barrier efficacy over chemical adjuncts, though clinical trials were nonexistent, and user-dependent placement posed inherent risks of displacement. In America, physician Edward Bliss Foote advanced related barrier concepts in the 1860s with his "womb veil," a vulcanized rubber pessary intended to occlude the vaginal vault and cervix, functioning as a precursor to both caps and larger diaphragms; Foote sold thousands via mail order despite legal obscenity challenges under Comstock laws. Despite these developments, 19th-century caps saw limited diffusion outside elite medical circles, constrained by custom fitting needs, lack of standardization, and prevailing moral opposition to contraception, with European popularity exceeding American uptake but never achieving mass use.

20th Century Commercialization and Studies

Cervical caps saw limited commercialization in the United States during the early 20th century, with manufacturers such as Durex Products offering rubber dome variants and the Surgical Instrument Company producing metal models from the 1920s through the 1940s. Sales declined thereafter, overshadowed by the diaphragm and constrained by evolving medical regulations and material advancements favoring latex alternatives. In Europe, broader availability persisted, exemplified by the Prorace rubber cap developed by Marie Stopes for use in her 1921 family planning clinic. The Prentif Cavity-Rim Cervical Cap represented a key late-20th-century development, gaining U.S. (FDA) approval on May 23, 1988, following a regulatory review process that began in the amid heightened scrutiny of contraceptive devices. This approval marked the first formal U.S. market entry for a modern cervical cap design, though earlier variants like the Vimule cap had been studied and used internationally. Despite approval, commercial viability proved challenging, with Prentif and similar models like Vimule and Dumas failing to sustain widespread market presence due to user fit issues and competition from hormonal methods. Clinical studies in the mid-to-late focused on efficacy, , and comparative performance against diaphragms. A 1982 study of the Prentif cap, involving fittings from December 1977 to September 1979, assessed dislodgement as a primary failure cause and concluded the device matched diaphragms in and for suitable users. Another evaluation of 371 women reported a method of 3.7 per 100 woman-years, underscoring low when properly fitted and used with . Preliminary on the Vimule cap examined associated vaginal lesions, finding minimal adverse effects attributable to the device itself. These peer-reviewed assessments, drawn from controlled user experiences, affirmed the cap's principle as reliable for barrier contraception, though emphasizing the need for professional fitting to mitigate slippage.

Post-2000 Developments and Availability

In 2003, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the FemCap, a silicone-based cervical cap designed to address limitations of earlier latex models, such as allergic reactions and fitting challenges. The device features a dome-shaped structure with a removal strap on the exterior brim, available in three sizes (22 mm, 26 mm, and 30 mm) selected based on a woman's obstetric history: small for nulliparous women, medium for those with vaginal births, and large for cesarean sections. This second-generation design received Conformité Européenne (CE) marking for use in Europe, where it can remain in place up to 72 hours compared to 48 hours in the U.S. The FemCap is reusable for up to one year with proper cleaning and storage. Post-approval, the FemCap became the sole cervical cap commercially available worldwide with both FDA and CE approvals, filling the void left by discontinued predecessors like the Prentif cap. Limited clinical studies in the 2000s explored its integration with spermicides and potential for HIV/STI risk reduction, though evidence for the latter remains preliminary and focused more on diaphragms. No major new cervical cap designs have entered regulatory approval since, amid broader shifts toward long-acting reversible contraceptives, but the FemCap has sustained niche interest for its hormone-free profile. As of 2023, the FemCap requires a prescription from a healthcare provider for fitting and is obtainable at pharmacies, drugstores, or clinics , with many insurance plans covering it as a device. Availability is primarily limited to and ; it is not widely distributed in other regions due to regulatory and supply constraints. Usage remains low, categorized by U.S. reports as a less effective barrier method, reflecting challenges in provider training and consumer awareness.

Criticisms and Limitations

Effectiveness Limitations

The cervical cap exhibits lower contraceptive efficacy compared to many other barrier methods and hormonal options, with typical-use pregnancy rates ranging from 14% to 29% annually, depending on user demographics and adherence. In perfect-use scenarios, where the device is correctly fitted, inserted prior to intercourse, and paired with while remaining in place for at least six hours post-coitus, failure rates approximate 6% to 9% for nulliparous women but rise to 9% to 28% for parous women due to anatomical changes in the and following , which compromise the cap's seal and retention. A key limitation stems from parity: studies consistently demonstrate substantially higher failure rates among women who have given birth vaginally, with one-year typical-use probabilities reaching 30% to 40% in parous users versus 15% to 20% in nulliparous users, attributed to softening, elongation, and reduced tone that hinder proper suction and positioning. This disparity arises because the cap relies on a precise vacuum seal against the , which is more readily achieved in women without prior deliveries. User-dependent factors exacerbate inefficacy, including incorrect insertion (reported in up to 20% of attempts in clinical trials), accidental dislodgement during intercourse, and inconsistent application, all of which diminish barrier integrity and allow migration. Comparative trials, such as the 1986 multicenter study of the Prentif Cavity-Rim cap versus the diaphragm, revealed the cap's inferior performance, with cumulative gross pregnancy rates of 20% for the cap overall (15% nulliparous, 30% parous) against 17% for the diaphragm, highlighting the cap's greater sensitivity to placement errors and fit variability. Efficacy also declines without spermicide, as the cap alone provides incomplete spermicidal action, and reliance on nonoxynol-9 introduces risks of mucosal irritation that may indirectly promote failure through inflammation. Long-term studies indicate that discontinuation due to perceived unreliability further limits sustained use, with real-world adherence often falling short of trial conditions.

Practical and Accessibility Challenges

The cervical cap necessitates professional fitting by a clinician to match the device's size to the individual's cervical dimensions, a procedure that requires substantial time, effort, and expertise to avoid slippage or inadequate coverage. Users frequently encounter challenges with self-insertion and removal, as the small, thimble-shaped device must be positioned precisely over the cervix using suction, often demanding repeated practice sessions for mastery. Improper technique can lead to dislodgement during intercourse, increasing failure risk, while the process may interrupt spontaneity if not pre-inserted. Additional practical hurdles include potential discomfort from the device or required , as well as reduced efficacy for women who have given birth vaginally, due to cervical changes that impair fit and seal. Partner discomfort from the cap's presence has also been reported, sometimes necessitating removal post-intercourse to mitigate irritation. These factors contribute to a , with initial users particularly prone to errors in placement verification, which must be manually checked after insertion. Accessibility barriers stem primarily from the method's dependence on healthcare provider involvement for fitting and instruction, limiting uptake in underserved areas lacking trained clinicians. Costs typically range from $50 to $150 for the device, examination, and fitting, excluding ongoing spermicide expenses, which may deter low-income users without comprehensive insurance coverage. Unlike widely available over-the-counter options, the cervical cap's specialized nature results in sporadic distribution through college health services, midwifery practices, or select pharmacies, exacerbating disparities in regions with contraceptive service gaps.

Broader Debates on Barrier Methods

Barrier methods, including the cervical cap, are often debated in public health discussions for their lower typical-use effectiveness compared to hormonal contraceptives or long-acting reversible methods like intrauterine devices, with failure rates exceeding 20% in real-world scenarios due to user-dependent application errors such as improper insertion or timing. Proponents argue that barriers avoid systemic hormonal exposure, reducing risks like venous thromboembolism or potential long-term effects on mood and metabolism associated with combined oral contraceptives, making them preferable for individuals with contraindications to hormones or those prioritizing minimal physiological interference. Critics, however, contend that this efficacy gap contributes to higher unintended pregnancy rates, particularly among populations with inconsistent access to education or supplies, prompting recommendations for dual-method use combining barriers with more reliable options. A key distinction in these debates centers on sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention, where male and female condoms provide substantial dual protection against both pregnancy and pathogens like HIV when used correctly—reducing HIV transmission risk by up to 80% with consistent application—whereas cervical caps and diaphragms offer negligible STI barrier due to incomplete coverage of vaginal surfaces and lack of external sheath protection. This limitation has fueled arguments for prioritizing condoms in STI-prevalent settings, such as among adolescents or in high-burden regions, while non-condom barriers like the cervical cap are positioned as supplementary for monogamous couples focused solely on contraception, though evidence shows limited added benefit against bacterial vaginosis or urinary tract infections from spermicide use. Accessibility and equity debates highlight barriers' over-the-counter availability for some types (e.g., condoms, spermicides) as an advantage over clinician-requiring methods like fitted caps, yet persistent challenges include cost burdens for uninsured users— with one in five reproductive-age women reporting discontinuation due to affordability—and geographic barriers in rural or low-resource areas exacerbating disparities. advocates emphasize barriers' role in empowering user-controlled without medical intervention, aligning with preferences for non-invasive options in diverse cultural contexts, but systemic underpromotion relative to hormonal methods—potentially influenced by funding biases toward pharmaceutical-backed alternatives—raises concerns about informed choice. Overall, these methods are valued for their reversibility and absence of side effects but critiqued for demanding higher discipline, underscoring ongoing tensions between individual and population-level efficacy goals.

References

  1. [1]
    Barrier methods of birth control - series—Cervical cap - MedlinePlus
    Mar 31, 2024 · The cervical cap prevents pregnancy by blocking the sperm from entering the uterus.
  2. [2]
    The cervical cap - PubMed
    The cervical cap is a barrier contraceptive method with an efficacy similar to that of the diaphragm. It has several advantages over other barrier ...
  3. [3]
    Cervical cap versus diaphragm for contraception - PMC
    The cervical cap and the diaphragm are vaginal barrier contraceptive methods that prevent pregnancy by covering the cervix.
  4. [4]
    The cervical cap: past and current experience - PubMed
    Based on the principle of occlusion, the cervical cap appears effective and risk-free, both vital concerns to women of all centuries. Women's health activists ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Cervical Cap - accessdata.fda.gov
    Mar 28, 2003 · There are several barrier contraceptive devices that are available, including the cervical cap, diaphragm, female condom, Lea's Shield and male ...<|separator|>
  6. [6]
    The cervical cap: effectiveness as a contraceptive - PubMed
    The cervical cap appears to have a satisfactory rate of contraception when compared with other barrier methods and women are adept at its use.Missing: peer- reviewed
  7. [7]
    Contraception and Birth Control Methods - CDC
    Aug 6, 2024 · Barrier Methods. Diaphragm or cervical cap—Before sexual intercourse, the diaphragm or cap is inserted in the vagina with spermicide to block or ...
  8. [8]
    Contraception and Birth Control
    Cervical caps. These are similar to diaphragms but are smaller and more rigid. The cervical cap is a thin silicone cup that is inserted into the vagina before ...
  9. [9]
    Cervical Cap: Contraceptive, How To Use & Effectiveness
    Jul 23, 2025 · Cervical caps are most effective when used with spermicide. They're available by prescription and come in three different sizes.Missing: peer- | Show results with:peer-
  10. [10]
    Barrier Contraceptives - Women's Health Issues - Merck Manuals
    The cervical cap, a hat-shaped silicone cup, is inserted into the vagina and positioned over the cervix. A cervical cap prevents sperm from entering the cervix.
  11. [11]
    Cervical Cap - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    The cervical cap is defined as a cup-shaped device made of plastic or rubber that fits around the cervix, designed for contraception.
  12. [12]
    The cervical cap. An alternate barrier contraceptive method - PubMed
    The clinical effectiveness of the cervical cap as a contraceptive device has had limited study and evaluation. Of the 3 comprehensive studies in the literature ...
  13. [13]
    KaWe cap pessary - Museum of Contraception and Abortion
    Cap pessary made from celluloid, size 5; in its original, rectangular packaging, including usage instructions. Old model of a cervical cap, which would be ...
  14. [14]
    Rubber vault cap | Science Museum Group Collection
    Rubber vault cap, in original box, modified "Dumas Antigeniture", by E.L.S., c.1939. Contraceptive caps are variously called cervical, vault or diaphragm caps.
  15. [15]
    Vault cap, 'Dumas Antigenture' type, London and Paris, 1920-1960
    A vault cap is a barrier contraceptive. It sits over the cervix and acts as a barrier to sperm entering the uterus. This is an example of a Dumas type cap.
  16. [16]
    Instructions on the fitting and use of cervical and vault contraceptive ...
    3 basic types of contraceptive cap are available, the Prentif cavity rim cervical cap, the Dumas, vault cap, and the Vimule cap. Each type depends for its ...
  17. [17]
    Womb veil - Wikipedia
    Made of rubber, it was a forerunner to the modern diaphragm and cervical cap. The name was first used by Edward Bliss Foote in 1863 for the device he ...
  18. [18]
    Cervical Caps and Diaphragms - Dittrick Medical History Center
    Cervical caps were manufactured and sold in the United States from the 1920's through the 1940's. Durex Products sold a rubber dome.<|separator|>
  19. [19]
    Diaphragm or cap - NHS
    Find out how diaphragms and caps work to prevent pregnancy, how effective they are, where to get them and how to use them.What are diaphragms and... · Where to get diaphragms or caps<|separator|>
  20. [20]
    Cervical Caps
    A cervical cap is a small, firm latex or silicone cup designed to adhere to the cervix by suction and to hold gel close to the cervix.Missing: regional | Show results with:regional
  21. [21]
    Spermicide, Condom, Sponge, Diaphragm, and Cervical Cap - ACOG
    A few barrier methods (spermicide and condom) can be bought in most drugstores. Others (diaphragm and cervical cap) must be prescribed by a health care ...
  22. [22]
    Birth Control: How Effective Is the Cervical Cap (FemCap)? - WebMD
    Sep 19, 2024 · The cervical cap (FemCap) is a soft, thimble-shaped cup made out of silicone or latex. It fits snugly over the cervix (where the uterus opens ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
  23. [23]
    The cervical cap: a barrier contraceptive - PubMed
    The cervical cap may eventually prove to be a safe, satisfactory, noninvasive, and nonhormonal contraceptive alternative for women in the US.
  24. [24]
    Cervical Cap: How To Use, Effectiveness, and more - Healthline
    Feb 24, 2025 · The cervical cap is a vaginal barrier method of birth control. It consists of silicone rubber and works by preventing sperm from entering your uterus.
  25. [25]
    Cervical Cap - Sutter Health
    A cervical cap is a soft rubber cap that is fitted by a health professional around your cervix. It protects against pregnancy and some but not all STIs.
  26. [26]
    Cervical cap versus diaphragm for contraception - PubMed
    Background: The cervical cap and the diaphragm are vaginal barrier contraceptive methods that prevent pregnancy by covering the cervix. The two devices also act ...
  27. [27]
    Review: the Prentif cervical cap was as effective as the diaphragm in ...
    The Prentif Cavity Rim Cervical Cap was as effective as the diaphragm in preventing pregnancy; the FemCap cervical cap was not as effective as the diaphragm.
  28. [28]
    A comparative study of the safety and efficacy of femcap®, a new ...
    The FemCap is a new barrier contraceptive that is made of silicone rubber and is designed to conform to the shape of the vaginal fornices and cervix.
  29. [29]
    Cervical cap versus diaphragm for birth control - Cochrane
    Oct 21, 2002 · The Prentif cap prevented pregnancy as well as the diaphragm, but the FemCap did not. Women who used the Prentif cap had more abnormal changes ...
  30. [30]
    The Prentif contraceptive cervical cap: a contemporary study of its ...
    The only cap used in this study was the Prentif Cavity-Rim Cervical Cap. Delfen Cream was selected for the cap acceptors. 6 guidelines for satisfactory cap ...
  31. [31]
    Contraceptive efficacy of the diaphragm, the sponge and the cervical ...
    First-year probabilities of failure during perfect use are 11-12% for the sponge, 10-13% for the cervical cap, and 4-8% for the diaphragm. Further, the ...Missing: effectiveness empirical
  32. [32]
    Birth control failure rates - the Pearl Index explained - Drugs.com
    Sep 8, 2025 · Birth control method failure rates and efficacy ; Cervical cap, 4-8, 17-23, 92 - 96% ; Chemical contraceptives - spermicides, 18, 28, 82%.
  33. [33]
    The cervical cap: A retrospective study of an alternative ...
    The failure rate was 16.9 per 100 women years (Pearl method), with inconsistent use and dislodgement being of major importance. The continuation rate was 75% ( ...
  34. [34]
    Use and Effectiveness of Barrier and Spermicidal Contraceptive ...
    Since patient anatomy and factors such as parity will affect the size of cervical cap ... The FemCap requires a smaller amount of spermicide than the Prentif ...
  35. [35]
    The cervical cap as a contraceptive alternative - PubMed
    Accidental dislodgement of the device during intercourse appeared to be the major factor in the failure rate. Use of the Vimule cap has been associated with ...Missing: affecting efficacy
  36. [36]
    Effectiveness of the cavity-rim cervical cap: results of a large clinical ...
    The estimated first-year pregnancy risk was 11.3% (95% confidence limits 10.0-12.8), with risks of 8.3 and 3.8% for user and method failures, respectively.Missing: affecting efficacy
  37. [37]
    Contraception and Adolescents | American Academy of Pediatrics
    Nov 1, 2007 · OCPs have a failure rate of 0.1% when used perfectly. However, failure rates range between 5% and 8% with typical use and for adolescents may ...
  38. [38]
    Progress report on a study of the cervical cap - PubMed
    The most influential factor affecting length of cap use was the woman's use of spermicide with the cap: spermicide use substantially decreased the likelihood of ...Missing: efficacy | Show results with:efficacy
  39. [39]
    Canadian Contraception Consensus Chapter 5 Barrier Methods
    The diaphragm and cervical cap serve as a physical barrier between sperm and the cervix and should always be used in conjunction with a gel that immobilizes or ...
  40. [40]
    Understanding contraceptive failure - PMC - NIH
    The difference between failure rates during typical use and failure rates during perfect use reveals the consequences of imperfect use. This difference ...Missing: peer- | Show results with:peer-
  41. [41]
    Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates From the 1995 National ...
    Mar 29, 1999 · Correcting for unreported abortions had a large impact on estimates of contraceptive failure. The NSFG yielded a weighted estimate of 2,157,473 ...
  42. [42]
    Methods - Diaphragm, Cervical Cap, Sponge - Harvard Health
    The diaphragm, cervical cap, and sponge are devices that you place inside your vagina to form a barrier over the cervix. They are sometimes called barrier ...Missing: regional | Show results with:regional
  43. [43]
    A comparative study of the safety and efficacy of FemCap ... - PubMed
    The objectives were to compare the two devices with regard to their safety and acceptability and to determine whether the probability of pregnancy among FemCap ...Missing: comparison | Show results with:comparison
  44. [44]
    Vaginal mechanical contraceptive devices - PMC - NIH
    The efficacy and the advantages and disadvantages of vaginal sponges, cervical caps and diaphragms are discussed and compared in this article. Full text. PDF.
  45. [45]
    Vaginal mechanical contraceptive devices - PubMed
    Cervical caps can be left in place longer than other barrier methods, and there is no absolute need to use chemical spermicides. Disadvantages of the cervical ...
  46. [46]
    Sponge versus diaphragm for contraception - PMC - PubMed Central
    The sponge was less effective than the diaphragm in preventing pregnancy. Discontinuation rates were higher at 12 months as well.
  47. [47]
    Barrier and Other Pericoital Contraceptives - Merck Manuals
    These products are similar in efficacy; overall, the pregnancy rate is 19% with perfect use and 28% with typical (ie, inconsistent) use. Spermicides should be ...
  48. [48]
    Cervical Cap | Birth Control | How It Works & Effectiveness - Bedsider
    The Negative · Spermicide can cause vaginal irritation. · Some people get frequent urinary tract infections when using the cap. · It can get pushed out of place by ...
  49. [49]
    Oral Contraceptive Pills - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
    Approximately 25% of women aged 15 to 44 who currently use contraception reported using the pill as their method of choice.Indications · Mechanism of Action · Administration · Adverse Effects
  50. [50]
    Oral Contraceptive Pills Are an Effective Method of Preventing ... - NIH
    OCP use in the general population is associated with a failure rate as low as 0.3% with perfect use, but as high as 9% with typical use. CD can be associated ...
  51. [51]
    Contemporary Hormonal Contraception and the Risk of Breast Cancer
    Dec 7, 2017 · Conclusions: The risk of breast cancer was higher among women who currently or recently used contemporary hormonal contraceptives than among ...
  52. [52]
    Oral Contraceptives and HRT Risk of Thrombosis - PMC - NIH
    Jan 4, 2017 · The results suggested that the risk is double in women who receive pills containing higher doses of estrogens. The risk for VTE is higher for ...
  53. [53]
    Progestin-only contraception and thromboembolism: A systematic ...
    Combined hormonal contraceptives, containing estrogen and progestin, are associated with a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), ...
  54. [54]
    Contraceptive Benefits and Risks - NCBI - NIH
    Oral contraceptives, for example, not only prevent pregnancy, but they also reduce the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer and protect against acute pelvic ...
  55. [55]
    Cervical Cap | the American Pregnancy Association
    The only cervical cap approved for use in the United States is sold under the brand name FemCap®.Missing: regional | Show results with:regional
  56. [56]
    What are the benefits of cervical caps? - Planned Parenthood
    Cervical caps are portable, reusable, and hormone-free. They're effective right away, and you can get pregnant as soon as you stop using it.
  57. [57]
    Cervical Cap: How to use & Effectiveness - Natural Cycles
    Jan 11, 2024 · A cervical cap is a barrier method of birth control. It's a small cup-shaped piece of soft silicone that looks a little like a sailor's hat.Missing: materials mechanism
  58. [58]
    [PDF] FC-Sample Kit-Clinician's Instructions - FemCap
    Please review both the clinician and patient instructions to familiarize yourself with proper FemCap usage. FemCap is a non-hormonal, barrier method birth.
  59. [59]
    Fitting the Cervical Cap - PubMed
    The cervical cap is now available for general use by American women. Several steps are necessary to select women who are good candidates for cap usage and ...
  60. [60]
    FemCap FAQ – Answers to Your Common Questions
    Does FemCap require a custom fitting? FemCap doesn't require custom fitting, however, a prescription is required in the USA. · Do I need a prescription for ...
  61. [61]
    Clinicians – FemCap Professional Guidelines & Resources
    Access FemCap resources for clinicians including fitting tips, patient guides, and how to use FemCap as a reliable non-hormonal birth control method.Missing: process | Show results with:process
  62. [62]
    How to Use a Cervical Cap | Follow Easy Instructions
    How do I insert my cervical cap? · Push the cap deep into your vagina. · Once your cervical cap is in place, make sure your cervix is covered.
  63. [63]
    Instructions on Cervical Cap
    INSTRUCTIONS FOR CERVICAL CAP USERS · Wash hands with soap and water before inserting, checking, or removing cap. · Do not leave in place longer than 48 hours.Missing: fitting process
  64. [64]
    Side effects and risks of the diaphragm or cap - NHS
    Side effects · urinary tract infections (UTIs) · toxic shock syndrome (this is very rare) · skin irritation to you or your sexual partner caused by latex or ...
  65. [65]
    review and report of clinical trial of the Oves® cervical cap
    The Oves cervical cap in this study had a contraceptive effectiveness rate of 100%. There were no serious or severe side effects.
  66. [66]
    How safe are cervical caps? - Planned Parenthood
    Spermicide makes cervical caps a lot better at preventing pregnancy. But the chemical in most spermicides, nonoxynol-9, has some risks. If you use spermicide ...<|separator|>
  67. [67]
    Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS): Causes, Symptoms & Treatment
    Toxic shock syndrome (TSS) is a rare but serious condition caused by certain strains of bacteria. It's often associated with tampon use but can affect anyone.
  68. [68]
    Toxic shock syndrome and diaphragm use - PubMed
    TSS may also occur in women who use the cervical cap which remains in place for 4-7 days, but this has not yet been reported. It may be important for ...
  69. [69]
    Cap | NHS inform
    Oct 22, 2024 · The contraceptive cap (FemCap) is a circular dome made of thin, soft silicone. It's inserted into the vagina before sex, and covers the cervix ...Missing: regional | Show results with:regional
  70. [70]
    a retrospective study of an alternative contraceptive technique
    A follow-up study on 130 women fitted with a cervical cap over a 12-month period drew a response rate of 43% (56 respondents). The group was young, ...Missing: events | Show results with:events
  71. [71]
    The cervical cap - University of Arizona
    In addition, the side effects seen with other barrier methods do not occur with the cervical cap. In some women, Papanicolaou tests may become abnormal, ...Missing: events studies<|control11|><|separator|>
  72. [72]
    Contraception with the cervical cap: Effectiveness, safety, continuity ...
    Many of the women in this study were very satisfied with the cervical cap; however, such problems as dislodgement, discomfort to user and partner, difficulty ...
  73. [73]
    Oves contraceptive cap: short-term acceptability, aspects of use and ...
    Conclusions: Few women indicated that they would use the cap in the future. However, most women were satisfied with their current method of contraception. The ...
  74. [74]
    Use effectiveness of the Prentif cervical cap in private practice
    Pregnancy and dislodgement of the cap during use were the principal reasons for discontinuation of exclusive use, with gross rates of 19.1 and 12.9 per 100 at ...
  75. [75]
    Use effectiveness of the prentif cervical cap in private practice
    No major side effects related to the use of the Prentif cap were observed in the course of this study, involving 918 women-months in year 1. Pregnancy and ...Missing: efficacy trials
  76. [76]
    Contraceptive discontinuation due to method dissatisfaction in the ...
    Dissatisfaction-related discontinuation rates varied widely by method: the diaphragm and cervical cap showed the highest rates of discontinuation (52 ...
  77. [77]
    Contraceptive discontinuation attributed to method dissatisfaction in ...
    Results: Overall, 46% of women had ever discontinued at least one method because they were unsatisfied with it. Dissatisfaction-related discontinuation risks ...Missing: rates | Show results with:rates
  78. [78]
    Use of contraceptives by women of upper socioeconomic status
    They used barrier methods predominantly, with the use of less theoretically effective methods correlating significantly with a greater number of ...<|separator|>
  79. [79]
    Birth control method choice and use of barrier methods for sexually ...
    Oral contraceptive users were of higher socioeconomic status and at lower STD risk. Barrier method users and women who used no method were young and at higher ...
  80. [80]
    Contraceptive Use Among Canadian Women of Reproductive Age
    Jan 20, 2009 · Cervical cap. 0.2. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0 ... 14 Although normative data will always be skewed by self-selection, relationships among demographics, ...
  81. [81]
    The Cervical Cap in the Feminist Women's Health Movement, 1976 ...
    Mar 24, 2016 · The cervical cap appeared to be an ideal alternative for women wary of the potentially damaging side effects of the Pill and IUD.
  82. [82]
    Cultural differences in a family planning clinic - PubMed
    Non-Asian patients favored the pill (50%) and the IUD (22%), found the condom less popular at 15%, and found the cervical cap least favored at 13%. Parity ...
  83. [83]
    Evidence from the 2014–2015 Chad Demographic and Health Survey
    Oct 24, 2022 · ... contraceptive methods (e.g., cervical cap, contraceptive sponge). ... Socio-demographics and prevalence of modern contraceptive use. Among ...
  84. [84]
    The Evolution of Women's Birth Control: Ancient to Modern ...
    Sep 4, 2025 · Sometimes it was a solid cap-shape, and sometimes round with a hole, like a bagel (only way smaller, obviously). Ancient medical papyrus ...
  85. [85]
    Fertility control in ancient Rome - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
    Nov 2, 2020 · Soranus' approach was essentially inclusive, covering contraception, abortion, and exposure, as well as infertility treatments, in a single ...
  86. [86]
    7 Non-Hormonal Birth Control Methods through History
    Mar 23, 2023 · It's said that the lovers of the famous lothario Giacomo Casanova used lemon rinds as a natural cervical cap. This was back in the 1700s when ...
  87. [87]
    Cervical Barrier Advancement Society
    Cervical barriers, including diaphragms and cervical caps, are among the oldest known contraceptives. Ancient texts document the use of crocodile dung pessaries ...
  88. [88]
    Medicine: Comeback of A Contraceptive - Time Magazine
    Jun 6, 1988 · Dr. Friedrich Wilde, a German gynecologist, developed the modern rubber version in 1838, and it quickly gained widespread popularity in Europe.
  89. [89]
    [PDF] A History of Birth Control Methods - Planned Parenthood
    Dec 1, 2010 · Wilde's pessaries resembled today's cervical caps. He used modern materials to imitate the traditional German custom of applying disks of melted ...
  90. [90]
    A Timeline of Contraception | American Experience | Official Site - PBS
    Dr. Wilhelm Mensinga, a German scientist, invents a larger cervical cap. His model will gain widespread popularity and come to be known as "the diaphragm."
  91. [91]
    Recent Experience with the Cervical Cap in the United States
    The invention of the cervical cap has traditionally been attributed to German gynecologist Friedrich A. Wilde, but this supposition remains controversial. In.
  92. [92]
    A Brief Note on Rubber Technology and Contraception - jstor
    In the United States Edward Bliss Foote in the early 1860s in- troduced what he called "The Womb Veil," made of rubber, which was very similar to the ...
  93. [93]
    A brief history of contraception | Wellcome Collection
    Aug 25, 2020 · The Prorace rubber cap was developed by Dr Marie Stopes, who opened the first family-planning clinic in the UK in 1921. 'Prorace' refers to the ...
  94. [94]
    FDA approval ends cervical cap's marathon - PubMed - NIH
    On May 23, 1988, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its approval of the Prentif cavity-rim cervical cap for general use in the US.Missing: introduction date
  95. [95]
    The Renaissance of Hormone-Free Barrier Contraception and ...
    The FemCap is highly acceptable. In these clinical trials 75% of women preferred the FemCap over the diaphragm [3]. The Fertility Awareness Method is the safest ...
  96. [96]
    The prentif contraceptive cervical cap: A contemporary study of its ...
    The role of cap dislodgement as a cause of method failures is analyzed. It is concluded that caps are as safe and effective as diaphragms and that for many ...
  97. [97]
    I. vaginal lesions associated with use of the vimule cap - ScienceDirect
    Prior to investigating the contraceptive efficacy of cervical caps, we undertook a preliminary study to evaluate potential side effects of these devices.
  98. [98]
    femcap barrier contraceptive - Premarket Approval (PMA) - FDA
    APPROVAL FOR THE FEMCAP BARRIER CONTRACEPTIVE. THE FEMCAP IS INDICATED FOR USE BY WOMEN OF CHILDBEARING AGE WHO DESIRE TO PREVENT OR POSTPONE PREGNANCY.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  99. [99]
    [PDF] Cervical Cap – CON 13 - North Dakota Health and Human Services
    The cervical cap is vaginal barrier contraceptive method that prevents pregnancy by covering the cervix. This is a non-latex device, made of durable silicon ...
  100. [100]
    10 years out: cervical cap overcoming barriers - PubMed
    A silicone cervical cap (Femcap) is now going through the FDA approval process, and a polyurethane cervical cap is in the development stage as well.Missing: 2000 | Show results with:2000
  101. [101]
    [PDF] Family Planning Annual Report - 2023 National Summary
    Sep 14, 2024 · c For 2011–2020, cervical cap or diaphragm was categorized as a “moderately effective” method. For 2021 onward, it is categorized as a “less ...<|separator|>
  102. [102]
    [PDF] OUT LOOK - Cervical Barrier Advancement Society
    In addition to offering protection from pregnancy, some researchers believe diaphragms and cervical caps have the potential to offer women protection from some.Missing: structure | Show results with:structure
  103. [103]
    Cervical Cap versus Diaphragm for Contraception | Request PDF
    Aug 6, 2025 · Reviewer's conclusions: The Prentif cap was as effective as its comparison diaphragm in preventing pregnancy, but the FemCap was not. Both ...
  104. [104]
    What are the disadvantages of using cervical caps?
    Cervical caps work best when used correctly every time you have sex, which is difficult for some people to do. Also, spermicide can have side effects.
  105. [105]
    10 years out: Cervical cap overcoming barriers |… | Clinician.com
    Davis participated in the original clinical trials leading to the Prentif's approval and now serves as a provider trainer. For women who have never seen or ...
  106. [106]
    An Evidence-Based Update on Contraception: A detailed ... - NIH
    Nonhormonal methods generally have fewer risks and side effects because, by definition, they don't involve exposure to exogenous or synthetic hormones. As with ...
  107. [107]
    Barrier Contraception - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Barrier methods of contraception generally are less effective than hormonal contraception, and their efficacy is more dependent on the user (see Table 7‐1).
  108. [108]
    Contraception and sexually transmitted diseases - PubMed
    Barrier methods, especially when combines with spermicides, can reduce the risk of STDs/HIV if used consistently.
  109. [109]
    [PDF] Barrier Methods for Contraception and STI Prevention - CoSRH
    Aug 6, 2012 · Women with sensitivity to latex proteins should avoid the use of latex barrier contraceptives and may use a silicone diaphragm, cervical cap, ...<|separator|>
  110. [110]
    Contraception in the United States: A Closer Look at Experiences ...
    Nov 3, 2022 · One in five uninsured females of reproductive age say they had to stop using a contraceptive method because they couldn't afford it. A smaller ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms